Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS)

ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Former Yugoslavia

Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet General Rose to discuss the progress of the humanitarian relief operation.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Progress of the humanitarian relief operation in the former Yugoslavia is a matter for the United Nations and the humanitarian aid agencies working in theatre. British troops in Bosnia continue to assist with the escorting of humanitarian aid convoys and the exchange of detainees and displaced persons.

Mr. Kynoch: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in recognising the superb contribution made by British troops in the delivery of humanitarian aid? Will he especially recognise the effort put in by the Gordon Highlanders, who are celebrating their 200th anniversary this year and were used as a top-up last year? This year they are due to merge with the Queen's Own Highlanders. Even at this late stage, in the light of their proud history and continuing commitments, will the Secretary of State reconsider the need for that merger?

Mr. Rifkind: I give unstinting praise to the work of the Gordon Highlanders and, indeed, all British forces in Bosnia who have represented their country and our armed forces in such an exemplary fashion. I recognise the sadness for any regiment facing amalgamation, but I emphasise that all the finest traditions of the Gordon and Queen's Own Highlanders will be fully sustained in the formation of the new Highland regiment.—a regiment of which the people of the north-east of Scotland will have every reason to be proud.

Dr. David Clark: Notwithstanding the fact that General Rose is an officer of the United Nations Protection Force, will the Secretary of State make it his business to seek him out and make it clear to him that he has the full support of this House? Will he congratulate him on all his imaginative efforts in bringing about peace in parts of Bosnia and reassure him that he has the full support of the House in trying to extend that peace? Finally, and perhaps

most important, will he indicate to General Rose the numbers of British troops to be made available to him when the peace accord is finally brokered?

Mr. Rifkind: The UNPROFOR commander is well aware of the very high regard in which he is held in this House and throughout the world for the way in which he has carried out his responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the United Kingdom is one of the foremost countries in the world with regard to the provision of military support to the United Nations in Bosnia. Clearly it is important that no responsibilities are put on UNPROFOR which are incompatible and inconsistent with the forces available to it. We hope that all countries will show the same responsibility that this country has shown in supporting the United Nations in its difficult task.

Contractorisation

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of contractorisation on military career structures.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): Military career structures are reviewed regularly, taking into account all factors including my Department's contractorisation and market-testing programme.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunity for people from varied backgrounds to achieve qualifications that would not otherwise be open to them is one of the admirable things that our armed forces offer? I am thinking especially of Welbeck college and Shrivenham. Will my hon. Friend therefore assure the House that in the review of contractorisation he will bear in mind the effect on career structures, especially on the technical side, to ensure that they are not prejudiced, which would disadvantage the operation of our troops generally?

Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful comments. It is important that the armed services retain skilled technical personnel and I am sure that they will do so, whatever the outcome of the "Front Line First" studies. As for recruiting and future career structures, there is no sign that recruiting is in any sense becoming disappointing. All three services are succeeding in recruiting more than 90 per cent. of their manpower targets—a figure which we regard as satisfactory.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that contractorisation goes beyond movement in career structure and also affects the quality of life of service people? The fewer service people there are on a base, the more guard duties they have to do. In addition, the whole ethos of the military establishment has been eroded by contractorisation. The Minister can visit Army camps and RAF stations and find young men with earrings and pigtails. That is not the service I know and recognise. Contractorisation has gone too far with too little thought.

Mr. Aitken: I agree that ethos is important in service life and there is no question of its being destroyed by "Front Line First" or any other study. We have a duty, however, to make sure that the armed services get the best possible equipment and support services and that maximum value for money is achieved. That is what our


studies are all about and they are progressing satisfactorily without doing the damage that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. David Shaw: If my hon. Friend is considering the benefits of contractorisation in relation to the military bands, will he bear in mind that there is a substantial petition under way to keep the Royal Marines school of music at Deal?

Mr. Aitken: As my constituency is immediately adjacent to that of my hon. Friend, and as I live only two miles from Deal, I can assure him that I have not missed the very trenchant signals that he and the many supporters of the Royal Marines school of music at Deal are sending. They will, of course, be considered by Ministers before any decisions are reached.

Departmental Housing

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to transfer his Department's surplus housing to ensure that it can be used for low-cost rented accommodation.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Wherever possible, surplus married quarters are offered for sale to housing associations. In some circumstances, properties may be offered on lease to local authorities or housing associations for use as rented accommodation.

Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Minister accept that a number of his ministerial colleagues have admitted that neither housing associations nor local authorities can afford to purchase MOD surplus housing stock? Will he therefore take a positive step to assist local authorities by supporting the Labour party's demand that local authorities be allowed to keep 100 per cent. of receipts from the sale of council housing instead of the miserly 25 per cent. allowed by the Government?

Mr. Hanley: I would rather stick to my own departmental responsibilities and explain that there are some 70,000 married quarters in the defence estate. Fewer than 10,000 are now vacant for one reason or another, but the record that we have established over the past few years is impressive. In the past year, we have sold more than 2,000 houses and we plan to sell 5,000 more over the next five years. We also contribute to helping the homeless and have leased more than 1,000 vacant homes to local authorities for rent.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that when selling off surplus housing stock, in these days of putting the "Front Line First", he will not lose sight of the need to secure an adequate return for the taxpayer at large?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have to balance the interests of the taxpayer with the interests of those who serve in the armed forces. I believe that the housing discount scheme and other schemes that give priority to those in the armed forces achieve that balance.

Mr. William Ross: When the hon. Gentleman is disposing of such accommodation, will he look carefully at the quality of accommodation that has to be used by the

Royal Irish Regiment in Northern Ireland, where three of my constituency members were burned to death very recently? Will he apply some of the receipts from the sale of surplus dwellings to improve that accommodation? When does he expect to receive a full detailed report of that tragedy and will he publish it?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point which is more about barrack sleeping accommodation than married quarters. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is an important issue which must be resolved. A full inquiry is being carried out and as soon as we receive the results I will make sure that he receives a copy.

Rosyth

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had from the Royal Navy concerning the future of Rosyth naval base.

Mr. Aitken: The Royal Navy is fully involved in the "Front Line First" studies concerning all naval bases, including Rosyth.

Mr. Salmond: The first thing that will be noticed in Scotland is that the Secretary of State has ducked the question again. Can the junior Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State has seen the completed study group report on Rosyth naval base? Why do even his Back-Bench colleagues believe that it recommends closure of the site? Does the Minister accept that the general feeling in Scotland is that in any contest with the south coast Rosyth will be sacrificed? Given the Prime Minister's stated commitment to open government, will it not be appropriate to publish the study group report and allow the people of Scotland to enter the debate before the Government reach their conclusion?

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of going over the top. He missed an excellent Adjournment debate on Friday afternoon, when many of his questions were answered in detail. The study teams for all the studies have now finished their work. Their reports will shortly be considered by Ministers for final decisions, but only when we have studied the reports and had full discussions will those decisions be made. I think that that answers the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Rosyth naval base does not go the way of Scapa Flow and Invergordon? Were it to do so, would it not be yet another symbol of Britain's maritime decline? Is not its maintenance necessary if the Royal Navy is to remain a blue-water oceanic navy and not a mere channel patrol for the south coast of England?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend's points will be considered by Ministers when we reach a final decision on this matter. However, in view of his strictures about shrinkage, I should make it clear that although in recent years the size of the Royal Navy has gone down in terms of fleet numbers, there has not been a similar reduction in the size of the four base port facilities. Indeed, we continue to operate four base ports despite a considerably reduced fleet. We must consider carefully the whole balance of naval infrastructure versus the size of the fleet, and that is what the study is largely about.

Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Minister agree that the various decisions made by Ministers, including the Prime Minister in 1991, that the Rosyth naval base was vital to the defence of the realm, were made in the full knowledge of the impact of the end of the cold war on naval commitments? Does he further agree that Rosyth remains important to the defence of the realm and that the promises made about its future should be kept?

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Lady has rightly been a strong advocate for the continued existence of Rosyth and we listen carefully to her. However, she does not strengthen her case by exaggerating promises that were never made —[Interruption.] To put the record straight, I shall repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in February 1991, when he made it clear that no decision had been taken to close Rosyth or any other naval base. He said:
We fully recognise the implications that closure would have for employment in the area. Those implications would be fully considered and examined before any such decision was taken."—[Official Report, 5 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 159.]
That falls a long way short of the pledge or promise inferred by the hon. Lady. The record shows that the Government have always played their hand fairly and openly and without giving any false promises to anyone.

Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be the widest possible consultation before any decision is made on the closure of any Royal Navy base? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that our right hon. and learned Friend recently visited HMS Malabar and that any final decision on its closure will not be taken until there has been widespread consultation?

Mr. Aitken: I confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend made the visit to which my hon. Friend referred. I also confirm that before any final decisions are taken there will be fair and widespread consultations on any proposals put forward at the end of the "Front Line First" study.

Dr. Reid: Does the Minister not feel even slightly embarrassed that although one Cabinet member has said that he is prepared to fight publicly and privately for the retention of Rosyth, all that has emanated from the Secretary of State has been the "silence of the lamb"? Will he at least assure the House that before any decisions are taken on Rosyth all the alternative costings will be made available? Does he appreciate that if he refuses to do so, in addition to the accusations of betrayal in Scotland there will be accusations of a financial whitewash?

Mr. Aitken: There is no question of a whitewash. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that before final decisions are taken all Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, will be consulted. Once our proposals have been announced, we shall publish the information on which our decisions are based and there will be a fair opportunity to consider the proposals and the information contained in them.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will recall that the last time we went round that track and the recommendation to close Rosyth naval base was before Ministers, it was rejected. Instead of changing one of the four base ports, we closed the only training port. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will receive a delegation from me if he decides to close Rosyth naval base, because such a decision will change the naval balance? We can put up an even better

case for a privatised naval base in Portland to do the training work much more cheaply than if it were sent to Plymouth.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend's question emphasises that strong regional and constituency interests are quite properly at stake in the various decisions. The ministerial team at the Ministry of Defence plays fair and takes the defence interests, above all, into consideration. On my hon. Friend's request to bring a delegation to see me, he has done that in the past and I have always tried to give him a fair and courteous hearing. I should be glad to receive a delegation from him at some time in the future if he thinks it necessary.

Territorial Army

Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part the Territorial Army will play in the planning of the defence budget.

Mr. Hanley: The Territorial Army plays no formal part in the budgetary process, although we do, of course, take the Territorial Army fully into account in all our defence budgetary planning, and there is regular contact between departmental staff and the Territorial Army at all levels.

Mr. Enright: The Minister will be aware how efficient the Territorial Army unit is in my area. Will he therefore promise that there will be no cuts in the Territorial Army there, particularly as the high incidence of unemployment means that for many of my constituents being in the Territorial Army is their only stake in society?

Mr. Hanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that no decisions on the future size and shape of the Territorial Army have yet been taken. Announcements will be made before long, but, whatever the outcome of current studies, the Territorial Army will continue both to play a vital role in supporting and augmenting the Regular Army and to make a highly valued contribution to our defence capability. The Territorial Army is an integral part of the Army's mobilised order of battle.

Sir Peter Hordern: As we shall always need strong reserve forces, does my hon. Friend agree that the Territorial Army is a cost-effective way of providing those reserves? Will he say something about the present limitations on the role of the Territorial Army in serving abroad with Her Majesty's forces? Will he consider introducing legislation so that the Territorial Army and our reserve forces can play a more active part in that respect?

Mr. Hanley: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. The Territorial Army is extremely efficient and effective. Changes are in the pipeline to try to ensure that its members can be deployed abroad more easily. On 19 April, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced that a pilot scheme to test the feasibility of using the Territorial Army in support of the Regular Army would be run in the Falklands. A platoon will go from July to November this year and a company will go from March to July next year. It may help the House if I say that that scheme has been oversubscribed and the group has now been formed. We look forward to a most successful experiment.

Mr. Olner: Will the Minister also bear in mind that the Air Training Corps, an excellent part of which is in my


constituency of Nuneaton, also needs funding? Although the Air Training Corps depends on voluntary contributions, it needs the continuing support of the Minister and the Ministry.

Mr. Hanley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we consider all three forces in seeking to ensure the effective use of our reserve forces.

"Front Line First"

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on "Front Line First".

Mr. Rifkind: I expect to be able to make a statement on the outcome of the defence costs study before the House rises for the summer recess.

Mr. Gill: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would be the first to agree that far more important to the armed services than reviews and studies is an undertaking that there will be adequate funds for them to discharge their responsibilities in the future. Given that defence is the essential insurance policy that this country cannot afford to be without, would he consider it unreasonable to spend no less than 10 per cent. of national annual expenditure on our defence forces?

Mr. Rifkind: Clearly, the expenditure that is made available must be related to the commitments of our armed forces. There is a clear contrast between Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition. The Government have given an unequivocal assurance that there will be no further reductions in the fighting capability of our armed forces. The Opposition have given no such assurance in relation to the defence review that they wish to initiate, which would presumably result in serious and savage cuts to the fighting capability of our armed forces.

Mr. Macdonald: Given the emphasis placed on contractorisation as part of "Front Line First", will the Secretary of State give a commitment that he will not approve any major reduction of the facilities at the Royal Artillery range in the Hebrides, but that a full contractorisation study will be made to realise some of the benefits that could be gained through contractorisation in the Hebrides?

Mr. Rifkind: I am very conscious of the significant and substantial economic importance of the range to the local community in the Hebrides. Clearly, all options are being considered as to the best way to ensure that the needs of the Army are met. In those studies, we are also conscious of the wider implications for the local community.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when the decisions are made on "Front Line First" and the statement is made, the statement will be primarily concerned with the back-up forces? In examining the contribution made by the Air Training Corps and the Air Cadets, as was mentioned earlier, is it not important to recognise the contribution that they and the other cadet forces make to the community at large? It is cheaper to keep good youngsters good than to try to make bad ones good.

Mr. Rifkind: I recognise that the cadet forces have performed a valuable role in giving an initial experience of

service life to young people, who quite often go on to a career in the armed forces. They also ensure, even for those who do not to on to a career in the armed forces, a wider awareness of the important role played by our uniformed personnel in the wider interests of the nation.

Dr. David Clark: Is the Secretary of State aware that the concept surrounding "Front Line First" is dangerously outmoded because modern armed forces operate as an integral whole and any change in logistical support will vitally affect operational capabilities? With that in mind, will he scrap his current flawed and piecemeal approach, follow the example of our allies and have a full defence review so that we can truly meet the security needs of this country?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friends should welcome the clear statement that the hon. Gentleman has just made. What he is calling for is a defence review that would be able to cut the fighting capability of our armed forces. That is a clear implication of the freedom that such a review would have under a Labour Government. Her Majesty's Government, on the other hand, have made it clear that we have no intention of making any further reductions in the fighting capability of our armed forces. That is the clear distinction between Government and Opposition on that issue.

Army Chaplaincy Service

Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the Army chaplaincy service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hanley: Chaplaincy services are being examined along with many other areas as part of the defence costs study, announcements on the broad outcome of which we hope to make in July.

Mr. Brandreth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Army chaplaincy service forms an integral part of the Army? Will he use this opportunity to pay tribute to the 190 Army chaplains for their work, not only at a spiritual level but at a pastoral level as well? They are among the unsung heroes of the Army: we need them and we should salute them.

Mr. Hanley: I willingly pay tribute to the chaplaincy service. Chaplains play an important role in fostering the mental health of soldiers, particularly in circumstances in which soldiers are under stress or likely to come under stress at short notice. In addition to their spiritual role, the chaplains provide a valuable welfare role to service men and their families. I should also tell my hon. Friend that there are not only heroes, but heroines as well.

Mr. Hardy: In view of his reply to his hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), will the Minister assure the House that the chaplaincy service will be neither contractorised nor privatised?

Mr. Hanley: I have a sneaking suspicion that we shall not be market testing the chaplaincy service.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend consider bringing together the chaplaincy services in all the armed forces? If that happens, are they likely to come to Eltham palace?

Mr. Hanley: I am sure that my hon. Friend would expect me not to make any statements at this stage, but to wait for the announcement following the defence costs study.

Departmental Personnel (Employment Prospects)

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about future employment prospects for his Department's personnel.

Mr. Hanley: It is our aim to ensure that we have the right balance of service and civilian manpower to enable the armed forces to carry out the full range of tasks that we require of them.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the proposed market testing of the Defence Accounts Agency on Merseyside is causing fear and anxiety among the 850 employees there? They are worried about their employment prospects. Will the Minister concede that the commercial confidentiality of the information processed at that office is in danger of being jeopardised, thereby putting more British defence jobs at risk? Why does he not tell the Treasury that that is a privatisation too far?

Mr. Hanley: I readily admit that the hon. Gentleman has fought hard for the unit involved. However, we have conducted our review of it fully and openly. Trade unions were consulted about the proposals, the changes were fully explained to staff and those who must move have been told about the relocation allowances that will be available to them. Nine of the posts have already been transferred and we expect to move about 19 to Bath, Glasgow and Swindon later this year, seven to London towards the end of 1995 and the balance to RAF Wyton in 1996.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that, among service personnel, none are more popular than British Army bands, whose splendid standards of excellence are world famous as a result of the unique training that they receive at the Royal Military school of music at Kneller Hall in Twickenham?

Mr. Hanley: I willingly recognise my hon. and musical Friend's interest in Kneller Hall. I also recognise that for him Kneller Hall is the front line and the rest of the British Army is support.

Mr. Donald Anderson: A few moments ago, I understood the Secretary of State to say that there would be no further cuts in front-line manpower. We shall examine that claim carefully in July, when the defence costs study is published. It is rumoured that there will be at least 25,000 further cuts.
Is the Secretary of State aware that in the statement on defence estimates published in April, for the first time, no targets for manpower were set? What is the motive for that? Is the Secretary of State, in effect, trying to disguise further, regular cuts? May we have an assurance that in July, after the study has been published, there will be period of calm and stability when our services can look forward to a stable future?

Mr. Hanley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little muddled on three counts. First, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that there would be no cut in the front-line capability of our armed forces—he was not talking about support. Secondly, in the "Statement on the

Defence Estimates 1994", civilian numbers are forecast to fall to 128,700–113,000 based in the United Kingdom and 15,700 locally entered. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman should remember that Labour is fighting under a European socialist manifesto, which contains a specific pledge to cut armed forces.

Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend confirm, on the civilian side, that while there has been a progressive reduction in the number of vital scientists and engineers, the one category of civil servants that has expanded in the past decade has been that dealing with budget holding? May I suggest that, in the defence costs study, the place to use the knife is the growing army of people involved in counting to the last penny?

Mr. Hanley: I assure my hon. Friend that that is one of the objectives of the defence costs study.

Defence Personnel

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how soon he expects to announce the results of his review of defence personnel.

Mr. Rifkind: The independent review of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service is required to report to me within 12 months of its starting work.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is no good carrying out reviews of personnel, equipment and other things until the Government have carried out a full review of what our defence commitments ought to be and that such surveys will have no credibility unless we know what our defence forces are expected to do?

Mr. Rifkind: We already know exactly what our defence forces are required to do; it is something to which the Government give their total commitment. Unlike the Opposition, we do not intend to contemplate further reductions in our fighting capability.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there will be considerable support among those on the Conservative Benches for significant reductions in the number of civil servants at the Ministry of Defence? Many of us have thought in previous years that, when there have been almost as many civil servants as soldiers, we had got the balance wrong.

Mr. Rifkind: I assure my hon. Friend that the defence costs study is considering civilian manpower as well as uniformed personnel. Clear evidence is emerging of considerable scope for further improvements in that sphere.

Mr. Martlew: May I ask about the future employment prospects of the work force at RAF Carlisle and RAF Quedgeley? The Minister of State for the Armed Forces has said three times that there needs to be a reduction of £85 million over 10 years in the budget of the equipment supply depot. The work force at RAF Carlisle has given him proposals that will save £85 million. Is the target still £85 million, or has the Minister moved the goalposts? Will he confirm that there will be an announcement on the future of RAF Carlisle and RAF Quedgeley next week?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces recently visited


RAF Carlisle. We are evaluating the various representations that have been made in response to the announcement made earlier this year, and we shall make a further announcement in due course.

Bosnia

Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the military situation in Bosnia.

Mr. Rifkind: The situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina remains generally calm, although sporadic small arms and mortar fire continues, together with some artillery fire in certain areas. The ceasefires in central Bosnia, Sarajevo and Gorazde are generally holding.

Mr. Duncan Smith: My right hon and learned Friend is resisting the siren calls for more troop deployments to Bosnia, but does he agree that the complex situation in Bosnia demonstrates that Britain, when it needs to co-operate, must do so with NATO? Does he also agree that we must, however, retain the capability to operate independently in the defence of British interests?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. NATO has been, and remains, central to our policy on the defence of the realm and any question of closer European co-operation on defence matters is, of course, subject to the overriding importance of maintaining the primacy of NATO as fundamental to our defence interests. That is, and will remain, our defence policy. Some of the remarks that were attributed, I hope mistakenly, to my hon. Friend in an article in The Sunday Telegraph were quite bizarre. We have no intention whatsoever of supplanting NATO as the central plank of our defence policy.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the military situation in Bosnia has dictated that British forces are now involved in three roles—humanitarian relief, peacekeeping and peacemaking?

Mr. Rifkind: We have certainly been willing to see British forces used in Bosnia to assist the United Nations to carry out its mandate. That mandate does not involve a combat role for British forces and nor will it be allowed to be changed in that direction. We support warmly any way in which the British forces can assist the United Nations in its humanitarian and peacekeeping role.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with those British soldiers and others who have expressed concern at Mr. Akashi allowing Serbian tanks to pass through the exclusion zone? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Could there be a little less noise in the House? It is extremely difficult to hear. Could the conversations be quieter, please?

Mr. Rifkind: It is for Mr. Akashi to explain his thinking in allowing the movement of Serb tanks through that zone. I accept that, on the face of it, it was a most unexpected exercise of his discretion, but we hope that he will ensure that his approach is consistent with the UN's policy.

Defence Capability

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made as regards Britain's

capacity to meet her own defence needs and her political obligations and military contributions to international peacekeeping.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government are confident that our armed forces are fully able to carry out the broad range of operations that they currently undertake.

Mr. Mackinlay: Did the Secretary of State notice that, during the poorly reported Army debate last week, Conservative Back Bencher after Conservative Back Bencher spoke about the crisis of morale among our service men and service women and their concern about the arbitrary withdrawal of units? Is there not a need, demonstrated by his own colleagues, for a fundamental review of our armed services to match commitments with resources?

Mr. Rifkind: What I noticed about the Army debate last week was that, so unconcerned are the massed ranks of the Labour party in the interests of the Army, hardly a single Labour Member graced the Opposition Benches. I am also conscious that the Labour party can hardly speak with authority about those matters when the European socialist manifesto, personally signed by the Leader of the Opposition, calls for further reductions in the fighting capability of our armed forces.

Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time to sit down and reflect on whether it is appropriate that millions of hours of military and civilian officials' time and many more millions of pounds are being squandered in this ghastly Treasury-driven "Front Line First" exercise? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his time and that of his Ministers, his officials and the military brass would be better devoted to ensuring that our forces in the front line have the equipment that they require? Specifically, is not it unsatisfactory and unacceptable that British military aircraft should be sent into combat over Bosnia without the means of self-protection against missiles, which could be provided for a fraction of what has been spent by his Department on management consultants in recent years?

Mr. Rifkind: The second part of my hon. Friend's question was totally inconsistent and incompatible with the first part of his question. The whole point of the "Front Line First" study is to ensure—as I am sure my hon. Friend would wish—that resources within the Ministry of Defence are concentrated on the needs of the front line of our fighting forces in a way that I believe that my hon. Friend will applaud fully.

Mr. Home Robertson: While the Minister is seeking advice on those matters, is he absolutely satisfied that it is appropriate for him to be recruiting into his Department as a civil servant someone who has recently been a high-profile party politician in the city of Edinburgh?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, anyone who applies to the civil service for employment is assessed against exactly the same criteria, irrespective of his or her personal or political background.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that, increasingly, the defence needs of the United Kingdom will be met by closer co-operation with our European allies? In that respect, may I congratulate him on his frankness yesterday, particularly in the rather febrile


atmosphere of the moment, in acknowledging that a common defence policy was an inevitable consequence of the Maastricht treaty and that a common defence policy will be a key subject for discussion at the intergovernmental conference of 1996?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had fully acquainted himself with the facts, as he normally does, he would appreciate that yesterday the United Kingdom successfully insisted on ensuring that any development of European co-operation should happen within the framework of the Atlantic alliance. Any proposal for closer European co-operation that undermined that alliance would be unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government both now and in the future.

Territorial Army

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with senior Army officers about future plans for the Territorial Army.

Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend and I have regular discussions with senior Army officers, including Brigadier Holmes, on a wide range of issues, including future plans for the Territorial Army.

Mr. Rathbone: In those conversations, will my hon. Friend resist any temptation further to cut the territorial forces, by 15 per cent. or by any greater or lesser amount, especially after the cuts of 30 per cent. or more made under "Options for Change"? Will he bear in mind especially the calls by the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment of Sussex and the Fourth Royal Green Jackets, with which I was proud to serve, because, as the Regular Army is cut, the reserves are all the more important?

Mr. Hanley: As I said earlier—I shall say it again to my hon. Friend—no decisions on the future size and shape of the Territorial Army have yet been taken, although there will be announcements before long. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his letters; they have formed part of the consultation exercise.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

ENGAGEMENTS

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Shepherd: During the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that over the past year, industrial output in the United Kingdom rose—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that industrial output in this country rose by 3.7 per cent.—[interruption]—while in Germany, Japan, France and Italy industrial output fell? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is but one of a large number of good news stories abounding in this country at this time that deserve wider currency? Will my right hon. Friend confirm—[Interruption.] Will he confirm that it is still permissible to publish good news in this country?

The Prime Minister: As far as I could hear my hon. Friend over a fairly turbulent House, I believe that he was referring to the good news about the economy that has been evident over recent weeks. Good news is certainly allowed, but I fear that it may often be masked by less important matters these days. The fact is that the British economy is growing, has been growing for some time and is expected to continue to grow. Thankfully, unemployment is falling and is expected to continue to fall.

Mr. John Smith: Is not the cry for a referendum on Europe further and compelling evidence that the Prime Minister's Cabinet and party are hopelessly divided? Is not it astonishing that battle is permitted to rage even within the Treasury? Does the Prime Minister support his Chancellor or his Chief Secretary?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and as I have made clear to the House on many occasions, I am sceptical about referendums. I made that clear during the Maastricht debate, and I have not changed my mind. There is not even a specific agenda for the intergovernmental conference yet. I do not believe that the question of a referendum arises now, and it certainly does not need to be decided now. It is not yet possible to say what the outcome of the conference will be, and I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not intend to come back to the House with a package that the House would find unacceptable.

Mr. John Smith: On the question of referendums, does the Prime Minister recall saying something to the House on 6 May last year? His exact words were:
We are a parliamentary democracy, and I am not in favour of referendums."—[Official Report, 6 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 284.]
Today he expressed scepticism. Is the movement from opposition to scepticism because he is running in front of the anti-Europeans?

The Prime Minister: If he had listened carefully, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have also heard me say a moment or so ago that I have not changed my mind. As to a single European currency, as I have said before, decisions on that are a long way off. That will not be determined in 1996. No one expects that this Parliament is going to be asked to decide on a single European currency. That would be a matter for a future Parliament, in circumstances that no one can predict. It was my negotiating at Maastricht that made it clear that this Department would have the right to decide on that matter at a future date. Even if I wish to, I could not bind a future Parliament on its decisions.

Mr. John Smith: If that answer by the Prime Minister is to be construed as ruling out a referendum in the future, can we be assured that every member of his Government will be asked to support it or will be asked to resign?

The Prime Minister: I have just set out the position clearly for the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have made it entirely clear to him that it would not be appropriate to make a commitment now about a future Parliament's decision. Even if I wished to, I could not bind a future Parliament. My personal decision on referendums has been made entirely clear on other occasions and again today. I reiterate that I have not changed my mind.

Mr. Trotter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a fact that if we were to have a Labour Government, we would inevitably have higher taxation and weaker defences, and that our policy on Europe would be destroyed by socialism? Is not that a message that all of us on the Government Benches should be constantly conveying?

The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that a Labour Government would be a very improbable premise. Even last Thursday, which appears to have buoyed them, they secured a lower share of the vote than we secured in the last general election. My hon. Friend is entirely right. A Labour Government would mean substantial defence cuts, higher expenditure and higher taxation, and would also mean signing up as part of a federal European state. That is no future for this country and will not be accepted by the people of this country at the next general election.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that his answer on the question of a referendum will serve only to confirm his reputation as the maybe man? How can the British people be asked to vote on the question of Europe by a Government who are so divided on that issue and a Prime Minister whose answer on the key questions cannot get further than "perhaps"? Will he now tell us whether his answer is supposed to construe the meaning that he is opposed to a referendum, under any circumstances, as a result of which there might be a substantial change in Britain's relation with Brussels—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is at his own game as a veritable opportunist for all seasons. I made perfectly clear a few moments ago what is my personal position on referendums. I also made it clear that, in 1996, I am not going to bring back anything remotely likely to be unacceptable to the House and I made it clear that on a far future date, the decision on a single European currency must be made by this House. I cannot bind the House and I do not intend to try to bind the House at this distance in time.

Sir Terence Higgins: Is not it the case that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of a Government who introduced a referendum—an alien concept, inconsistent with our system of representative parliamentary democracy? Is not it absurd for those who argue that the authority of this House is being usurped by Brussels to advocate the use of a device that would undermine the authority of the House?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend points to something with which the House has become familiar—the selective memory of the Leader of the Opposition about what he has stood for in the past. The points made by my right hon. Friend are undeniable and I agree with them.

Mr. Wicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wicks: Has the Prime Minister been told that since his campaign visit to Croydon, the wise people of Croydon threw out the Tory council after more than 100 years and elected a majority Labour council for the first time ever?

We thank him for that visit. Whom does he blame for the Croydon Tory disaster: the local Conservatives or his own Government?

The Prime Minister: Let me mention that I visited Westminster and Wandsworth as well. I congratulate the new Croydon councillors on their success in the elections and I sympathise with the Croydon electors who will have higher bills to pay and a less efficient administration.

Mr. Deva: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Deva: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom attracted the highest level of foreign investment of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1991 and 1992? Would the Labour party's proposed increases in business taxes, enunciated in the European socialist manifesto, add encouragement to that vote of confidence in Britain?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. We have built up a position over many years as a favoured country for inward investment. That is apparent in Scotland, the north-east, the north-west, Wales and many other places. There is no doubt that that position would fall away if we followed the policies advocated by Opposition Front-Bench Members. A social chapter would inhibit inward investment, as would the 35–hour week, a minimum wage and plans to harmonise taxes upwards, all of which the Leader of the Opposition has signed up to in the socialist European manifesto. That manifesto is binding on the Labour party as, I hope, the Labour party will make clear to every elector in the forthcoming European elections.

Mr. Connarty: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Connarty: Does the Prime Minister accept that there are hundreds of thousands of pensioners who are now genuinely concerned that, should they fall ill, their pensions and savings will be used to pay for care that they thought they had paid for through their taxes? Will he take on the bloodsuckers in the Treasury and in the Department of Social Security who are threatening the last vestige of compassion in the national health service?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are increasing resources in the national health service and increasing the provision of assistance to people in the national health service. Indeed, the national health service is the one service in Government that is guaranteed a real-terms increase, year on year, as we examine the relative proportions of public expenditure. There is no doubt about the growth, both for the elderly and for other people, in the national health service, and that growth will continue.

Mr. Lester: I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend's wise words on the subject of a referendum. Will he reflect on the fact that when the Labour party had a


referendum to provide party unity, that not only created the Social Democrat party but kept it in opposition for 14 years?

The Prime Minister: So far; there are more years of opposition to come.

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mudie: Why, only two weeks after expressing support for the aims of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, did the Prime Minister allow the cynical, Government-inspired sabotage of the Bill last Friday?

The Prime Minister: No one could have accepted a Bill, as drafted, with a cost compliance calculated at £17 billion and a yearly on-cost of £1 billion. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made clear in the debate on Friday, we intend within the next six months to consult on proposals to eliminate unjustified discrimination in employment, access to goods and services, financial services and access to buildings. We also intend to consult on the establishment of a new advisory body on disability. Those consultations will take account of the views of everyone with an interest in disability. At the end of that process, we shall consider assisting in the drafting of practical and workable legislation that will help the disabled.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great problems facing not only this country but the rest of the world is the increase in drugs and the terrible effect that that has on crime? Can he give an assurance that the Government and the police will give top priority to tackling the drug barons and their vile trade?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The sum total of expenditure to tackle the drugs menace exceeds something like £500 million a year. We are seeking, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord President, to bring together all the action that exists across Government so that we can most effectively target the drugs programme. We are also consulting our European partners—notably Germany—to see what can be done at the European level to assist in preventing drugs from coming to this country in the first place.

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howarth: As the leader of the most unpopular Government this century and with a divided shambles of a party beside and behind him, does the Prime Minister think that it would be better to clear the air and have a general election now?

The Prime Minister: At the last election, we received the highest number of votes that any party has ever received in a general election, and we received a five-year mandate to carry out our policies. I intend to exercise that five-year mandate. Then the hon. Gentleman will get his election and then if he personally is re-elected, he can continue to sit where he sits now.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: Denis MacShane, Esq., for Rotherham.

Personal Statement

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): On Friday last, during consideration of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, I stated in response to a question from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that my Department had played no part in the drafting of any amendments tabled by a number of my hon. Friends, and that
to the best of my knowledge, nobody in my Department has been involved in the drafting of any amendments in this area". —[Official Report, 6 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 991.]
Immediately afterwards, in response to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I drew attention to the fact that the Lord President would be replying to a question from him, which asked how many amendments had been drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. That answer confirmed that amendments tabled on 3 May had been drafted in Parliamentary Counsel's office.
My statement on Friday that my Department had not drafted any amendments was true, but, as I explained in a letter to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Department, with my authority, had been involved in their preparation. I therefore felt that I should offer this clarification of my remarks to the House as a whole.
I very much regret that by not giving a fuller explanation at the time the effect of my reply was misleading, and I offer my unreserved apologies to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for Government Members to congratulate Scottish National party Members on converting so many Labour Members to their party colours?

Madam Speaker: It is for individual Members to congratulate whom they wish.

Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is not only the hon. Member who misled the House on Friday. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), to whom I have given notice that I would be raising this matter, said on Friday:
the new clause and amendments were mine and mine only"—[Official Report, 6 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 974.].
Yesterday the hon. Lady said:
it would be totally unfair to suggest that they came from any other source."—[Official Report, 9 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 23.]
It is clear that, along with the Minister, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has misled the House. Has the hon. Lady requested your permission, Madam Speaker, to make a similar statement of apology to her colleagues?

Madam Speaker: I have not received any such indication from the hon. Lady.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Just a moment. I am answering a point of order, and I am on my feet.
Of course, I cannot investigate the accuracy of everything that hon. Members say to the House, but the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) is alleging a very serious parliamentary offence. Therefore, as he and the House know, the hon. Gentleman must write to me. If it is a matter of privilege, it will be dealt with.

Mr. Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: There can be no further points of order on that matter.

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) accused me directly of casting a slur on her reputation and yesterday in the House asserted that the Labour party was trying to use disabled people as a political football. Will the hon. Member get off scot free again?

Madam Speaker: Providing that what is said by the hon. Lady, or by any hon. Member, is within the rules and procedures of the House, I have no alternative but to accept it. [Interruption.] Order. I cannot investigate every comment which is made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We have heard—not today, because we cannot question a personal statement, but on previous occasions—that the Government allowed amendments to be drafted which would suit the Government. What has not been explained properly, but what ought to be, is that those amendments were drafted


not to suit the Government but so that the Government could turn them down. That is not what the Minister told us today. The Government were so Machiavellian that they drew up amendments which they could conveniently say they were not prepared to accept. That is the dirty manoeuvre, and that is why the Minister should resign.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order—

Madam Speaker: Order. I will not take any further points of order on that matter. That was not a point of order, in any event.

Mr. Heald: rose—

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I will hear it. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) only made a comment. It was a bogus point of order.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have written to you on the issue of contempt, and I have accused the Minister of being in contempt of the House—

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order. He has written to me on a matter of contempt and privilege. I must deal with it in that way.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is not the central issue that we have heard a personal statement from the Minister that the Government were involved in dirty tricks to try to block the Bill on Friday?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must understand our procedures. There can be no proceedings after a personal statement.

Mr. McMaster: Further to that, Madam Speaker. We now have a decision of the House which surely should not stand because of the tactics which were deployed. Can we have another opportunity to report the Bill?

Madam Speaker: If hon. Members wish to pursue the question of the future of the Bill, they must find other ways of doing so. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Mike O'Brien:: On a point of order, Madam
Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does it relate?

Mr. O'Brien: It relates—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is thinking on his feet. Is it a point of order for me? It had better be.

Mr. O'Brien: My point of order is this. On a statement such as the personal statement that we have heard today, which related to an incident in the House of great importance to all of us, is a different procedure available to Ministers by which they could make such statements which would allow us to question them about it? They are serious matters.

Madam Speaker: The answer is no. Perhaps we can move on.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.101(1) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

TRANSPORT

That the draft International Transport Conventions Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Conway.]

Question agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Motions 2 and 3 on the coal industry and value added tax are not moved.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.101(1) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Housing Management) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

EDUCATION

That the draft Education (National Curriculum) (Foundation Subjects at Key Stage 4) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Conway.]

Question agreed to.

Security Industry (Licensing)

Mr. Michael Stern: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the licensing of the security industry; and for connected purposes.
There is a growing perceived need for the work of private security firms, but at present there is no apparent check on their operations and no apparent way in which their work with members of the public and small businesses can be certified, registered or inspected to protect those same members of the public. Their work, principally in residential areas, involves not policing but an operation of merely maintaining a presence to protect the security of householders. As such, it is being welcomed increasingly in many areas of different types, not least in my constituency.
In the absence of any licensing or security procedures for such firms, there is a fear that villains will masquerade as honest men and, in doing so, provide not security but an opportunity for further crime. Similarly, in the absence of any provision for a check on the financing of such firms, there is the risk that ordinary members of the public will find themselves paying for the additional security that such firms offer only to discover that the organisers of the firms are men of straw, as appears to have happened, for example, with a firm known as Town and Country which was operating in my constituency recently.
Therefore, a measure to introduce regulation, licensing and inspection for private security firms is overdue. Indeed, it appears to have the support not only of large sections of the police, including the expressed support of the chief constable in my area, but the full support of the British security industry.
The Bill provides for the licensing of the security industry. I must underline that it merely provides powers which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary can choose whether to use and to what extent. It would in no sense force him to go down a road that he did not wish to follow. It merely gives him a suggestion of a road that he might usefully follow in order to provide greater reassurance to my constituents and others.
The Bill would cover security services provided by personnel whose main or only function was the protection of premises, property and persons. It would cover personnel whose main or only function was the prevention and detection of theft from retail premises. It would cover personnel and vehicles for the secure transport of cash and other items of value. However, it would not cover, nor would it seek to impinge in any way on, the work of a police force maintained under the Police Act 1964 or any other Act or any directly managed or contracted out prison or any prisoner escort arrangements within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
The Bill would not impinge in any way on the legitimate, valued and valuable work of our police and prison services. It is designed merely to act as a proper adjunct to the existing work of those services and any necessary expansion of it. The Bill would empower the Home Secretary to license security firms attempting to provide a service to members of the public and to withdraw any firm's licence. It would empower my right hon. and learned Friend to impose fees for such licensing and regulation procedures so that no charge would fall on the public sector. It would empower my right hon. and learned Friend to decide a commencement date for any or all of the provisions. In other words, the powers that it contains could be brought in at the convenience of the Home Secretary and of the prison and police services and as was generally deemed appropriate. For obvious reasons, the Bill would not apply to Northern Ireland.
Like many other people, I am always wary about the introduction of additional enforcement licensing and regulation, which is often unnecessary. However, I suggest that in this case it is necessary not only to provide for the proper expansion of an industry already seen by many people as a necessary part of life but also to deal with a number of deficiencies and dangers in the industry.
At present, no training policy is applied across the industry as a whole. Under the Bill the Home Secretary would have power to bring in, or to empower others to bring in, a training policy regarded as appropriate to the work that the industry is peculiarly capable of doing. At present there is nothing to prevent criminals or ex-criminals from setting up security firms and selling their services to the public. Under the Bill, the Home Secretary would be empowered to stop just this sort of practice.
There is a fear among many people that if we do not allow the security industry to grow naturally, as appropriate, under suitable regulation we shall open the door to something that I am sure that no hon. Member wishes to see on our streets—the growth of vigilante groups, people's armies and workers' militias and of all the other things that we have seen in many other countries. We do not want to see such things imported into the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Stern, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Alex Carlile, Sir Jerry Wiggin, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Michael Spicer, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Harold Elletson and Mr. Toby Jessel.

SECURITY INDUSTRY (LICENSING)

Mr. Michael Stern accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the licensing of the security industry; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 May, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

Orders of the Day — Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Ordered,
That the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses, except new Clauses relating to burdens imposed by public bodies and to the duration and expiry of Chapter I of Part I, amendments relating to Clause 5, Schedule 1, Clauses 6 to 8, Schedule 2, Clauses 9 and 10, Schedule 3, Clause 11, Schedules 4 and 5, Clauses 12 to 16, Schedule 6, Clauses 17 to 19, Schedule 7, Clauses 20 to 26, Schedule 8, Clauses 27 to 29, Schedule 9, Clauses 30 to 40, Schedule 10, Clauses 41 to 47, Schedule 11, Clauses 48 to 58, Schedule 12, New Clauses relating to burdens imposed by public bodies, Clauses 59 to 66, Schedule 13, Clauses 67 to 71, Schedule 14, Clause 72, New Schedules, New Clauses relating to the duration and expiry of Chapter I of Part I, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 4—[Mr. Conway.]

New Clause 12

CONTROLS ON FUND-RAISING FOR CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS: EXCLUSION OF CONNECTED COMPANIES

'.—(1)In Part II of the Charities Act 1992 (control of fund-raising for charitable institutions), section 58(1) (definitions) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In the definition of "commercial participator", after "person" there shall be inserted "(apart from a company connected with the institution)".

(3) In paragraph (a) of the definition of "professional fund-raiser", after "institution" there shall be inserted "or a company connected with such an institution".'.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 91 and 92.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.
The new clause is a response to points raised by the eighth deregulation task force, chaired by Tessa Baring, which has been examining charities and voluntary organisations. The new clause is also in line with the outcome of a consultation exercise that the Home Office carried out last year.
As right hon. and hon. Members may be aware, the eighth task force was appointed later than the seven business task forces. Mrs. Baring and her colleagues have examined a great amount of regulation conscientiously and enthusiastically and we are most grateful for their efforts. Their report has been prepared in draft form and is being considered by the relevant Government Departments with a view to publication soon—including a Government response to their recommendations.
As with the other task forces, a copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House. Part II of the Charities Act 1992 introduces controls on professional and commercial involvement in fund raising for a charitable institution—for a charity or any other charitable, benevolent or philanthropic organisation.
Part II applies where there is a solicitation on behalf of a charitable institution, or representation during a promotional venture, that contributions are to be given or applied for the benefit of a charitable institution. In such cases, part II requires two things: that a written agreement

with the organisation is already in existence, in accordance with prescribed requirements; and that a statement is made about the arrangements and accompanies each relevant solicitation or representation.
Part II is not yet in force. Draft regulations were issued for consultation last July and it had been intended that the provisions would be brought into force by now. It was decided, however, that commencement should wait until the views of the eighth deregulation task force were clearer. In fact, the task force is not—as I understand it —likely to recommend any fundamental changes to part II. Indeed, there is widespread support for its provisions and a wish to see them in force. The task force is likely, however, to endorse two key views that emerged from consultation on the draft regulations: the need to clarify the position over connected companies; and the need to allow longer time between the making of final regulations and their coming into force.
During the passage of the Charities Act 1992, the Government clearly stated that part II was not intended to regulate charities or companies connected to them—in other words, companies that are wholly owned or controlled by charities. Those who advise charities have had doubts, however, and think that the wording of part II does not achieve that intention to their satisfaction. The amendments effected by the new clause are designed to put that right.
I am sure that the House will agree that there should be no question of significant differences of interpretation, even before the law comes into operation. With that in mind I must make it clear—as does the legislation—that a company connected to a charitable institution may nevertheless be subject to part II if it is acting in concert with an institution to which it is not connected.
The two amendments grouped with the new clause are consequential on it and amend clauses 30 and 72, to provide that the new clause will come into force on Royal Assent and that it will extend only to England and Wales. The amendments are the only changes that the Government are proposing to the Charities Act at this stage of the Bill's passage, since the deregulation task force is still completing its report. We are examining carefully the case for further urgent amendments which it may be appropriate to table in another place. We have in mind the introduction of a new light-touch reporting regime for the smallest charities and hope to reach a conclusion on that issue shortly. Meanwhile, I urge the House, in the interests of charities, to accept this useful deregulatory measure.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I am grateful to the Minister for the introduction to new clause 12 and its purposes, and his reference to the consequential amendments. We shall certainly support new clause 12. What the Minister had to say makes a great deal of sense. They are technical issues, but they tidy up the Bill. We go along with the Government on that basis.
We also welcome the future reference to light touch reporting for smaller charities, which makes a great deal of sense. There may be an argument about the definition of a smaller charity, but the lighter touch would save money and time in terms of red tape.
The fact that the Opposition accept new clause 12 is typical of our approach throughout the proceedings on the Bill—if there is a sensible approach to removing regulation, of course we will support it. We shall not,


however, support those attempts to deregulate which put at risk the rights of employees and consumers. As new clause 12 does none of those things, we shall support it.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for what he said and I am sure the charity world is, too, as it will help deregulation. I am also grateful for what he said about supporting useful deregulation that does not reduce necessary protection but erases burdens. We are both of one mind as that is clearly set out as being the intention of the entire Bill. Perhaps it is a good omen for speedy progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

BETTING ON SUNDAYS

' .—(1) The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 shall be amended as set out in subsections (2) to (5) below.

(2) In section 5(1), for "Good Friday, Christmas Day or Sunday" there shall be substituted "Good Friday or Christmas Day".

(3) After section 10, there shall be inserted—
Rights of betting office workers as respects Sunday working. 10A. Schedule 4A to this Act (which makes provision in relation to the rights of betting office workers as respects Sunday working) shall have effect.

(4) In Schedule 4, in paragraph 1, for "Good Friday, Christmas Day and every Sunday" there shall be substituted "Good Friday and Christmas Day".

(5) After Schedule 4 there shall be inserted the Schedule set out in Schedule (Schedule to be inserted in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 after Schedule 4) to this Act.'.— [Mr. Paice.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. James Paice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient also to discuss amendment No.1—a new schedule—
'Schedule to be inserted in the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 after Schedule 4

SCHEDULE 4A

RIGHTS OF BETTING WORKERS AS RESPECTS SUNDAY WORKING

General interpretation
1.—(1) In this Schedule, except where a contrary intention appears—
'the 1978 Act' means the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978,
'betting office' means a licensed betting office within the meaning of this Act,
'betting worker' means an employee who, under his contract of employment, is required to work in England and Wales at a track for a bookmaker or totalisator operator or in a betting office on a day on which betting transactions are effected at that track by or on behalf of that bookmaker or totalisator operator or at that betting office,
'bookmaker' has the meaning given in section 55(1) of this Act,
'the commencement date' means the day on which this Schedule comes into force,
'dismissal' has the same meaning as in Part V of the 1978 Act,
'notice period', in relation to an opting-out notice,has the meaning given by paragraph 6 below,

'opted-out', in relation to a betting worker, shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 5 below, 'opting-in notice' has the meaning given by paragraph 3(2) below,
'opting-out notice' has the meaning given by paragraph 4(3) below,
'protected', in relation to a betting worker, shall be construed in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 below,
'totalisator operator' means the Totalisator Board or any other person authorised to conduct pool betting business within the meaning of this Act,
'track' has the meaning given in section 55(1) of this Act.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the following provisions of the 1978 Act—
section 151(1) and (2) (computation of period of continuous employment), and section 153 (general interpretation),
shall have effect for the purposes of this Schedule as they have effect for the purposes of that Act.
(3) For the purposes of this Schedule, section 151(2) of the 1978 Act shall have effect with the omission of the words from 'but' onwards and Schedule 13 to that Act shall have effect with the following modifications—

(a) in paragraph 1 for the words 'paragraphs 3 to 12' there shall be substituted 'paragraph 4 or paragraphs 9 to 12',
(b) paragraph 3 and paragraphs 5 to 8 shall be omitted, and
(c) in paragraph 4 the words 'which normally involves employment for sixteen hours or more weekly' shall be omitted.

(4) Where section 56 of the 1978 Act (failure to permit women to return to work after childbirth treated as dismissal) applies to an employee who was employed as a betting worker under her contract of employment on the last day of her maternity leave period, she shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as if she had been employed as a betting worker on the day with effect from which she is treated as dismissed under that section.

Meaning of 'protected betting worker'

2.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 below, a betting worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as 'protected' if, and only if—

(a) on the day before the commencement date, he was employed as a betting worker,
(b) on that day, he was not employed to work only on Sunday,
(c) he has been continuously employed during the period beginning with that day and ending with the appropriate date, and
(d) throughout that period, or throughout every part of it during which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, he was a betting worker.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) above 'the appropriate date' means—

(a) in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the effective date of termination,
(b) in relation to paragraph 10 below, the date of the act or failure to act,
(c) in relation to sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of paragraph 12 below, the day on which the agreement is entered into,
(d) in relation to sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph, the day on which the employee returns to work,
(e) in relation to paragraph 14 below, any time in relation to which the contract is to be enforced. And
(f) in relation to paragraph 15 below, the end of the period in respect of which the remuneration is paid or the benefit accrues.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, 'the effective date of termination', in any case falling within paragraph 1(4) above, means the day with effect from which the employee is treated by section 56 of the 1978 Act as being dismissed.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above—



(a) where an act extends over a period, the "date of the act" means the first day of the period, and
(b) a deliberate failure to act shall be treated as done when it was decided on,

and in the absence of evidence establishing the contrary, an employer shall be taken to decide on a failure to act when he does an act inconsistent with doing the failed act or, if he has done no such inconsistent act, when the period expires within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the failed act if it was to be done.

(5) Where on the day before the commencement date an employee's relations with his employer have ceased to be governed by a contract of employment, he shall be regarded as satisfying the conditions in sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) above if—

(a) that day falls in a week which counts as a period of employment with that employer under paragraph 9 or 10 of Schedule 13 to the I 978 Act (absence from work because of sickness, pregnancy etc.) and
(b) on the last day before the commencement date on which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, the employee was a betting worker and was not employed to work only on Sunday.

3.—(1) A betting worker is not a protected betting worker if—

(a) on or after the commencement date, he has given his employer an opting-in notice, and
(b) after giving that notice, he has expressly agreed with his employer to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.

(2) In this Schedule "opting-in notice" means a written notice, signed and dated by the betting worker, in which the betting worker expressly states that he wishes to work on Sunday or that he does not object to Sunday working.

Notice of objection to Sunday working

4.—(1) This paragraph applies to any betting worker who, under his contract of employment—

(a) is or may be required to work on Sunday (whether or not as a result of previously giving an opting-in notice), but
(b) is not employed to work only on Sunday.

(2) A betting worker to whom this paragraph applies may at any time give his employer written notice, signed and dated by the betting worker, to the effect that the betting worker objects to Sunday working.

(3) In this Schedule 'opting-out notice' means a notice given under sub-paragraph (2) above by a betting worker to whom this paragraph applies.

Meaning of 'opted-out betting worker'

5.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, a betting worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as 'opted-out' if, and only if—

(a) he has given his employer an opting-out notice,
(b) he has been continuously employed during the period beginning with the day on which the notice was given and ending with the appropriate date, and
(c) throughout that period, or throughout every part of it during which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, he was a betting worker.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above 'the appropriate date' means—

(a) in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the effective date of termination,
(b) in relation to paragraph 10 below, the date of the act or failure to act,
(c) in relation to sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of paragraph 13 below, the day on which the agreement is entered into, and
(d) in relation to sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph, the day on which the employee returns to work.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, 'the effective date of termination', in any case falling

within paragraph 1(4) above, means the day with effect from which the employee is treated by section 56 of the 1978 Act as being dismissed.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above—

(a) where an act extends over a period, the 'date of the Act' means the first day of the period, and
(b) a deliberate failure to act shall be treated as done when it was decided on,

and in the absence establishing the contrary, an employer shall be taken to decide on a failure to act when he does an act inconsistent with doing the failed act or, if he has done no such inconsistent act, when the period expires within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the failed act if it was to be done.

(5) A betting worker is not an opted-out betting worker if—

(a) after giving the opting-out notice concerned, he has given his employer an opting-in notice, and
(b) after giving that opting-in notice, he has expressly agreed with his employer to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.

Meaning of 'notice period'

6. In this Schedule 'notice period', in relation to an opted-out betting worker, means, subject to paragraph 11(2) below, the period of three months beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice concerned was given.

Right not to be dismissed for refusing Sunday work

7.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the dismissal of, a protected or opted-out betting worker by his employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the betting worker refused, or proposed to refuse, to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to an opted-out betting worker where the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal was that he refused, or proposed to refuse, to work on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the notice period.

(3) The dismissal of a betting worker by his employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the betting worker gave, or proposed to give, an opting-out notice to the employer.

(4) Section 142 of the 1978 Act (contracts for a fixed term) shall not exclude the application of section 54 of that Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) in relation to any dismissal which is unfair by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) above.—

8.—(1) Where the reason or principal reason for the dismissal of a protected or opted-out betting worker was that he was redundant, but it is shown—

(a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and
(b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(1) above,

then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to an opted-out betting worker where the reason (or principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(2) above.

(3) Where the reason or principal reason for the dismissal of a betting worker was that he was redundant, but it is shown—

(a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and


(b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(3) above,

then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.

Exclusion of section 64(1) of Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978

9. Section 54 of the 1978 Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) shall apply to a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of paragraph 7 or 8 above regardless of the period for which the employee has been employed and of his age; and accordingly section 64(1) of that Act (which provides a qualifying period and an upper age limit) shall not apply to such a dismissal.

Right not to suffer detriment for refusing Sunday work

10.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) below, a protected or opted-out betting worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the betting worker refused, or proposed to refuse, to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to anything done in relation to an opted-out betting worker on the grounds that he refused, or proposed to refuse, to work on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the notice period.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, a betting worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that he gave, or proposed to give, an opting-out notice to his employer.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) above do not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph a betting worker who does not work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday is not to be regarded as having been subjected to any detriment by

(a) any failure to pay remuneration in respect of betting work on a Sunday which he has done.
(b) any failure to provide him with any other benefit, where that failure results from the application, in relation to a Sunday on which the employee has not worked, of a contractual term under which the extent of that benefit varies according to the number of hours worked by the employee or the remuneration of the employee, or
(c) any failure to provide him with any work, remuneration or other benefit which by virtue of paragraph 14 or 15 below the employer is not obliged to provide.

(6) Where an employer offers to pay a sum specified in the offer to any one or more employees who are protected or opted-out betting workers or who, under their contracts of employment, are not obliged to work on Sunday, if they agree to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday—

(a) and employee to whom the offer is not made is not to be regarded for the purposes of this paragraph as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to make the offer to him or to pay him that sum, and
(b) an employee who does not accept the offer is not to be regarded for those purposes as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to pay him that sum.

Employer's duty to give explanatory statement

11.—(1) Where a person becomes a betting worker to whom paragraph 4 above applies, his employer shall, before the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which that person becomes such a betting worker, give him 'a written statement in the prescribed form.

(2)If—

(a) an employer fails to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in relation to any betting worker, and

(b) the betting worker, on giving the employer an opting-out notice, becomes an opted-out betting worker,

paragraph 6 above shall have effect, in relation to the betting office worker, with the substitute for 'three months' of 'one month'.

(3) An employer shall not be regarded as failing to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in any case where, before the end of the period referred to in that sub-paragraph, the betting worker has given him an opting-out notice.

(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, the prescribed form is as follows—

'STATUTORY RIGHTS IN RELATION TO SUNDAY BETTING WORK

You have become employed as a betting worker and are or can be required under your contract of employment to do the Sunday work your contract provides for.

However, if you wish, you can give a notice, as described in the next paragraph, to your employer and you will then have the right not to work on any Sunday once three months have passed from the date on which you gave the notice.

Your notice must—

be in writing;
be signed and dated by you;
say that you object to Sunday working.

for three months after you give the notice, your employer can still require you to do all the Sunday work your contract provides for. After the three month period has ended, you have the right to complain to an industrial tribunal if, because of your refusal to work on Sundays, your employer—

dismisses you, or
does something else detrimental to you, for example, failing to promote you.

Once you have the rights described, you can surrender them only by giving your employer a further notice, signed and dated by you, saying that you wish to work on Sunday or that you do not object to Sunday working and then agreeing with your employer to work on Sundays or on a particular Sunday.'

(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend the prescribed form set out in sub-paragraph (4) above.

(6) An order under sub-paragraph (5) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Effect of rights on contracts of employment
12.—(1) Any contract of employment under which a betting worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date is unenforceable to the extent that it—

(a) requires the betting worker to work on Sunday on or after the commencement date, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the betting worker with work on Sunday on or after that date.

(2) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (3) below, any agreement entered into after the commencement date between a protected betting worker and his employer is unenforceable to the extent that it—

(a) requires the betting worker to work on Sunday, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the betting worker with work on Sunday.

(3) Where, after giving an opting-in notice, a protected betting worker expressly agrees as mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(b) above (and so ceases to be protected), his contract of employment shall be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.

(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to a protected betting worker includes a reference to an employee who, although not a protected betting worker for the purposes of that sub-paragraph at the time when the agreement is entered into, is a protected betting


worker on the day on which she returns to work as mentioned in paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 of the 1978 Act (maternity).

13.—(1) Where a betting worker gives his employer an opting-out notice, the contract of employment under which he was employed immediately before he gave that notice becomes unenforceable to the extent that it—

(a) requires the betting worker to work on Sunday after the end of the notice period, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the betting worker with work on Sunday after the end of that period.

Except as provided by sub-paragraph (3) below, any agreement entered into between an opted-out betting worker and his employer is unenforceable to the extent that it—

(a) requires the betting worker to work on Sunday after the end of the notice period, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the betting worker with work on Sunday after the end of that period.

(3) Where, after giving an opting-in notice, an opted-out betting worker expressly agrees as mentioned in paragraph 5(5)(b) above (and so ceases to be opted-out), his contract of employment shall be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.

(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to a protected betting worker includes a reference to an employee who, although not a protected betting worker for the purposes of that sub-paragraph at the time when the agreement is entered into, is a protected betting worker on the day on which she returns to work as mentioned in paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (maternity).

14.If—

(a) under the contract of employment under which a betting worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date, the employer is, or may be, required to provide him with work for a specified number of hours each week,
(b) under that contract, the betting worker was or might have been required to work on Sunday before the commencement date, and
(c) the betting worker has worked on Sunday in that employment (whether or not before the commencement date) but has, on or after the commencement date, ceased to do so.

then, so long as the betting worker remains a protected betting worker, that contract shall not be regarded as requiring the employer to provide him with work on weekdays in excess of the hours normally worked by the betting worker on weekdays before he ceased to work on Sunday.

15.—(1) If—

(a) under the contract of employment under which a betting worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date, the betting worker was or might have been required to work on Sunday before that date,
(b) the betting worker has worked on Sunday in that employment (whether or not before the commencement date) but has, on or after the commencement date, ceased to do so, and
(c) it is not apparent from the contract what part of the remuneration payable, or of any other benefit accruing, to the betting worker was intended to be attributable to work on Sunday, then, so long as the betting worker remains a protected betting worker, that contract shall be regarded as enabling the employer to reduce the amount of remuneration paid, or the extent of the other benefit provided, to the betting worker in respect of any period by the proportion which the hours of work which (apart from this Schedule) the betting worker could have been required to do on Sunday in the period (in this paragraph referred

to as "the contractual Sunday hours") bears to the aggregate of those hours and the hours of work actually done by the betting worker in the period.

(2) Where, under the contract of employment, the hours of work actually done on weekdays in any period would be taken into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours, they shall be taken into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.

Proceedings for contravention of paragraph 10

16. Section 22B and 22C of the 1978 Act (which relate to proceedings brought by an employee on the ground that he has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 22A of that Act) shall have effect as if the reference in section 22B(1) to section 22A included a reference to paragraph 10 above.

Dismissal on grounds of assertion of statutory right

17. In section 60A of the 1978 Act (dismissal on grounds of assertion of statutory right), in subsection (4)(a), after sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be inserted "or

(iii) Schedule 4A to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963".

Conciliation

18. In section 133 of the 1978 Act (general provisions as to conciliation offers) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be added—
(ff) arising out of a contravention, or alleged contravention, of paragraph 10 of Schedule 4A to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963".'.

Mr. Paice: The effect of new clause 1 is to remove from the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 the ban on licensed betting offices opening to the public on Sundays. It also introduces into that Act a schedule of employee protection.
The impact, however, of the new clause would be to allow betting offices to open on Sundays, thus enabling horse racing to take place on Sundays. I should make it absolutely clear to the House that it will also enable greyhound racing to take place. I do not pretend to know very much about greyhound racing, so I shall leave it to other hon. Members to discuss in more detail, but I understand that the industry would benefit considerably and I have received a letter from the British Greyhound Racing Board expressing its support.
In the seven years that I have been a Member of Parliament, there have been three earlier attempts to allow Sunday racing to take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, introduced a Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), and then my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) took over the Bill of the noble Lord Wyatt. All failed—probably inevitably, given the constraints on private Members' legislation and because other aspects of Sundays had not been resolved by the House. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to my three hon. Friends for their pioneering work in raising the profile of the issue so that the industry was in a better position to address some of the problems before coming to the House tonight to try once more.
It is also important at this stage to point out to the House that considerable discussion has taken place within the industry over the past four months since I first conceived the idea of using the deregulation Bill as a vehicle for change. For all that time the hon. Member for Livingston


(Mr. Cook) has been involved in those discussions and has been most robust in his support for the principles, and I thank him for that.
Although I am conscious that in the past few days one or two voices in the industry have raised questions, I should make it clear that they have been involved and consulted for a considerable time before the new clause was tabled.
Some of my hon. Friends may be concerned at what might be seen an a stimulus to further betting and gambling. I make no secret of the fact that I do not share their criticism or concern, but I respect it. To that extent, it is important to review the law at the present time.
Although, in law, betting, gaming and lotteries are distinct forms of gambling, any survey of public opinion would find it extremely difficult to identify any difference in the public perception of them. All three are legal on Sundays, so a substantial amount of gambling already takes place.
It is perfectly legal for people to enter a casino on a Sunday and take part in all the activities of such places. It is also possible to bet on horse racing on Sundays. Anyone sufficiently well-off to have a credit account with a bookmaker can place bets by telephone on a Sunday on horse races taking place in a different country. I shall return to that point. People can play on an amusement-with-prizes machine—I prefer to call it a one-armed bandit—yet most people consider that to be gambling.
4 pm
Perhaps the most important point is that when the national lottery is introduced in a few months, it will be perfectly legal to buy a ticket on a Sunday from any of the outlets. The national lottery has been approved and supported by both sides of the House, working on behalf of the Government.
That brings me to my final point on the issue of betting, which is that the Government are not a disinterested bystander—on the contrary, the Treasury receives a substantial tax revenue from betting, gaming and lotteries. The general betting duty alone raises almost £500 million a year.
I want to explain why I believe that there is a need to allow horse racing on Sundays. It will not have gone unnoticed that horse racing and, indeed, greyhound racing are the only major sports that do not currently take place on a Sunday. Football, cricket, golf, motor racing and horse trials all take place on Sundays and the vast majority of people recognise them as part of modern Sunday leisure activities. Therefore, horse racing is being discriminated against by being unable to compete in what is becoming an ever-more competitive leisure market.
I make it clear that, of all the major horse racing countries, Britain is the only one where horse racing does not take place on Sundays. In Ireland, France and Italy, the three other big racing nations in Europe—incidentally, all Catholic nations—horse racing with betting takes place on Sundays. Indeed, in Ireland, which is in its third season of Sunday racing, it is already possible to draw some conclusions. By holding the Irish Derby on a Sunday, while we hold our Derby on a Wednesday, their attendances have risen substantially whereas ours have

fallen dramatically because modern life styles mean that fewer and fewer people can afford to take a day off midweek.
Attendances in Ireland on a Sunday compare favourably with comparative Saturday fixtures. Perhaps more important, many of the racegoers on a Sunday are different from the usual racegoer. They include many more women and children and there is very much more of a family atmosphere—and that is extremely important to horse racing if it is to become even more of a mainstream sporting activity.
Why is betting necessary in order to have horse racing on Sundays? First, anyone who goes racing knows of the significant increased attraction and enjoyment from being able to put a small bet on a horse that might take one's fancy for any one of a number of reasons. Secondly, and far more significantly, the inherent desire of the British people to gamble and to bet on horses will always find an outlet. There is justifiable concern in Customs and Excise that unless there is an opportunity for legal betting, both on and off-course, there will be a mushrooming of illegal activity, just as there was before the 1963 legislation. For that reason, it has not been possible for me to separate on and off-course betting.
Finally, there is the matter of the horse race betting levy —the very significant contribution back into the racing industry that comes from the use of racing's product by the betting industry. There is no doubt that, with the advent of the national lottery, there will be some diversion of any money available for gambling and horse racing, so racing will lose. In Ireland, the lottery reduced betting turnover by 17 per cent. That is why I am anxious that Sunday racing should provide an alternative way of sustaining betting office turnover, which would be good both for racing and for the bookmakers.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend's point about support for the industry through betting is also a factor in the possible transfer of prize money to courses overseas. I know from representations from Sandown Park in my constituency that it is worried about that factor, which is why it supports what my hon. Friend is saying this afternoon.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing the support from Sandown Park and Esher.
Over the past two years, three experimental race meetings have been held on Sundays to show the public exactly what a Sunday meeting could be like. Obviously, no cash betting could take place, although a small amount of credit betting occurred. The absence of cash betting severely damaged the quality of the racing, although the attendance was substantial.
What will happen if the new clause is passed? In the next two years, the British Horseracing Board will include in its fixture list a small number of Sundays. There will be no dramatic change; it is not intended that a sudden surge of Sunday meetings will take place all over the country. Britain has 59 racecourses, the vast majority of which would not be open on a Sunday. Many would never have Sunday meetings, while others would have just one or two. One has only to look at the Saturday fixture list to realise that most courses do not operate on Saturdays. And even if, in several years' time, Sunday racing becomes more


popular so that there is an overall increase in the fixture list, only a small number of Sunday meetings is likely to take place.
My final point concerns the new schedule of employment protection. I and my colleagues on both sides of the House who have tabled the new clause looked carefully at those who would be affected by the proposals. People who work in licensed betting offices and the staff of the Tote who work on and off course will be directly affected. Many others in the racing industry would also be affected: stable lads, jockeys, trainers, and horsebox drivers will work on Sundays, as will race course staff, officials, caterers and so on. But most of those already have Sunday work in their work rota. Stable lads, trainers, race course staff, officials and caterers often work on Sundays for a number of hours, although the new clause may increase that workload. Race course officials who do not have meetings at present may be involved in other activities on race courses on Sundays, such as antiques fairs, which take place on my local course of Newmarket.
In any event, most race courses will be closed on any one Sunday, so the only new group of employees who will be significantly affected will be the staff of betting offices and the Tote. That is why the new clause includes a new schedule of employment rights specifically for those staff.
I am aware of the concern of the Stable Lads Association, but the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, which I seek to amend, is not the correct vehicle for addressing the concerns of the stable lads and to do so would not be in order. I assure the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who has just joined us, that I understand the stable lads' concerns. The British Horseracing Board will undertake to initiate discussions with employers to obtain appropriate improvements and changes to the terms and conditions that will be necessary for stable lads who will have to work longer hours and on some Sundays.
The new schedule in amendment No.1 sets out terms of employee protection identical to those provided for retail staff in the Sunday Trading Bill, which is currently in another place. I recognise that many bookmakers may be concerned at being singled out for employee protection, but I hope that they will understand not only the fact that the House is unlikely to approve the measure without employee protection, but that, under current law, the distinct group of people that I have described would not normally expect to have to work on a Sunday.
The Betting Office Licensees Association, which represents the large bookmakers, is also concerned that its staff should be seen as employees of the leisure industry, not the retail industry. That may well be the case; it is an extremely valid argument, but to make that change would require a substantial review of the entire legislation surrounding betting offices, and that is not the purpose of my proposals. It could be done only under the auspices of a specific Government Bill at some stage in future.
Why should the British public be the only racing nation unable to enjoy their sport on a Sunday? To allow betting to operate would enable many more people to participate in the sport, in which Britain and—I make no bones about it —many of my constituents have been, and will continue to be, pre-eminent. I believe that new clause 1 and the new schedule that I have tabled with it are workable. I do not pretend to be infallible, but if, as I am advised, certain

aspects of the schedule on employment protection need to be technically changed, I hope that the Government will agree to do that in another place.
I welcome the fact that hon. Members on both Front Benches have agreed to a free vote on new clause 1. That is extremely valuable and welcome. I very much hope that, on the back of that, the House will accept the new clause and give the racing public an opportunity to enjoy their sport on a Sunday.

Sir Peter Emery: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South East (Mr. Paice) and congratulate him on the manner in which he presented his new clause and the reason with which he argued his case. Let me make it absolutely clear to him that I accept immediately that there is no reason why racing at race courses should not take place on a Sunday. It seems to me that it is a sport that many people appreciate, and there is no reason why those who are interested in it should be debarred from having race meetings on a Sunday when most other sports are able to continue. I understand also his argument that to have racing on a Sunday where there is no on-course betting makes it very difficult for the attraction, which is part of racing, to be complete. The whole of his argument on that is sincere and reasonable, and I accept it.
The only matter on which I have to begin to present an argument is for a considerable minority in this country —those who see a specific reason for trying to keep Sunday slightly special and who would find it somewhat unpleasant and unnecessary to have betting shops open in the high streets and villages throughout the country on a Sunday. That would happen because many of them are controlled by major national combines. There would be considerable resentment about that. My hon. Friend argued that, unless there was overall permission for betting to take place, both on and off course on a Sunday, it would be impossible for racing to proceed. I question that. He argued that that could not happen because Customs and Excise believes that, if betting shops were not to open, a great deal of illegal off-course betting would arise. That argument is somewhat dubious. It does not follow with the latter part of the case he made: that there would not be a major surge of meetings on a Sunday, and therefore there would not be a massive necessity to create an external factor in which betting can take place.
My hon. Friend admitted that many people—I believe that it is not just the rich, but many hundreds of thousands of people—have betting accounts. Many ladies in my constituency have betting accounts, watch the television and are delighted to place their small amount of money by telephone to the bookies. I see no reason why that should be banned. On the levy, it would not take much imagination on the part of the betting shops to prepare their betting slips to allow them to be used for a Sunday race as well for Saturday races so that those who wanted to bet on the Sunday schedule could quite easily do so on a Saturday without the shop having to open on a Sunday. They could collect their winnings on Monday.
4.15 pm
I believe that it is the Home Office that has objected to the licensing of on-course betting, refusing to accept that it can be separated from off-course betting. I hope that, before they accept the new clause, the Government will give an undertaking to reconsider the matter and establish


whether it is possible to agree to the licensing of on-course betting and betting on account—which can take place anywhere—without necessarily allowing betting shops in every village in the country to open on Sunday. That would benefit those who want to enjoy Sunday racing and to bet on course, while not incurring the objections of a number of people—a minority, admittedly, but one of the largest minorities in the country: a Christian minority. Balancing those two interests would be greatly advantageous to the Government, while allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East to achieve his aims without hindering the racing community.
I do not accept the argument of some outside organisations that unless there is off-course betting the industry will be unable to adopt Sunday racing. As my hon. Friend explained, there will be no sudden surge: if courses are allowed to provide on-course betting on Sundays, we shall achieve the objective that both he and I want. As I said, I support him at least in part.
I hope that the Government—including the Home Office—will examine the matter again. I see no reason for rejecting the new clause. After all, if the illegal off-course betting industry increases, the Government can increase the penalties to deter people. I believe that we can accommodate both sides of the question sensibly and reasonably.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I must declare an interest, as treasurer of the all-party group on racing and Woodstock. I have supported Sunday racing for many years; I have never been able to see the logic of allowing other sports to take place on Sundays while racing cannot. I have also been a strong supporter of on-course betting only, and—like the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)—I do not understand why the Home Office could not see the sense of such an arrangement. However, following extensive debate in the all-party group, I am aware that unless we take this opportunity to allow Sunday racing, we shall remain in a ridiculous position for many years. I therefore have to tell the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Mr. Paice) that I shall support the amendment—much to his surprise, I think—but I want the protection of workers' rights and of the additional payment for those who work on Sundays to be included in the Bill. If that protection is included, the hon. Gentleman shall have my strong support, although I also wish that there were racing with on-course betting only.

Mr. Michael Alison: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) for not being here when he moved the new clause, but the debate on the earlier new clause and amendments was so rapid that I could not get here quickly enough. However, I arrived just in time to hear him express some very helpful sentiments in connection with stable lads in particular. I shall detain the House for a few moments to highlight the new clause's implications for stable lads. It is not my hon. Friend's fault, but stable lads are perforce excluded from the employment protection measures proposed in amendment No. 1 to benefit those who work in betting shops.
There is no automatic employment protection for the 8,000 to 10,000 people employed in the racing industry, for either the 6,000 or so who work in the various types of stables or the 3,000 or so employed as breeders and transport staff. Mr. W. A. J. Adams, the national secretary

of the Stable Lads Association, has outlined a vivid scenario of what will happen to staff at a typical stable, who do not at present work have to do much work on a Sunday, if there is regular Sunday racing on a large scale.
Mr. Adams cites the example of a stable yard with 40 horses which is adequately staffed with a ratio of one lad to three horses. Let us assume that on alternate weekends only six or seven members of staff are on duty at the yard to look after the 40 horses. As a result of the new clause, two Sunday races could be scheduled suddenly—one at Ayr and one at Newbury. If the trainer or owner has engaged one horse to run at Ayr, the distance between Ayr and the yard will mean that two of the seven rostered weekend staff will have to travel on Saturday to get to Ayr on time, leaving a depleted weekend contingent of five to work on Saturday evening.
If the owner is exerting pressure to have a runner at Newbury as well as Ayr, another two members of the weekend staff will have to leave first thing on Sunday morning, thus leaving a weekend contingent of three at the yard to look after the remaining 38 horses. It will almost certainly lead to the trainer ordering staff who are rostered off duty to cover for staff away at the races. Therefore, staff will lose the valuable time off that they usually expect to have at the weekend. Of course, the yard may also have horses running on Monday, in which case they would need exercising on Sunday and the staff may have to leave for the races on Sunday afternoon, thus depleting the Sunday care and maintenance staff even further.
Such a scenario would have a profound effect on the life and lot of stable lads. Their life and lot is not one of exotic, plutocratic wealth or high standards of living. They are, in fact, a vulnerable and low-paid sector of the work force. They typically work one weekend in two, with five hours' overtime. In 1991, a lad aged 19 received £144 a week as a minimum consolidated wage. The idea that, because of the extra pressure caused by Sunday working, the key staff will be increased—or that numbers will be "staffed up", as the saying goes in the trade—is a myth. The key staff on which the training of racehorses depends are usually over 25 years of age, married and very difficult to replace. There is already a drop-out from the industry of those aged 23 years and over, with the anti-social hours and low pay creating difficulties for married couples. A move towards Sunday racing without protection from being forced to work on Sundays will inevitably increase that trend.
In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East has said already and in view of my own brief contribution to the debate, I hope that he will see that it is constructive, helpful and wise to do everything possible to ensure that stable lads and those connected with training stables will not be affected adversely. Life in training stables will have to change in order to put stable lads on reasonably even terms with those who are employed in betting shops for whom my hon. Friend is trying to get a better deal.
I believe that it is in the interests of the horse racing industry to offer a new deal to stable lads and those associated with them in the context of what my hon. Friend is trying to do in his amendment. If my hon. Friend will confirm that he will put all his moral and mental force behind improving the lot of stable hands in the face of many extra Sunday racing events, I will take everything that he said at face value and give him my full support and credit for what he is trying to do. But my support for his


amendment is conditional on the fact that he will go to town and secure at least as good a deal for stable lads as he is trying to secure for those who work in betting shops.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I intend to speak very briefly to the new clause as I suspect that the vast majority of hon. Members have already made up their minds about this issue. Nevertheless, it is important for me to put on record the reasons why I shall be voting against the new clause.
This debate is a conjunction of two very serious debates which have taken place in the Chamber in recent times —on the National Lottery Bill, when we explored the ethics of gambling, and the Sunday Trading Act 1993. Those debates caused great consternation on both sides of the House.
I was bemused to hear the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) make some kind of causal link between catholicity and an enthusiasm for gambling. I thought that that was very odd. As a Catholic, I am virulently opposed to gambling—but on a pragmatic basis. My opposition is not a matter of religious conviction; I oppose gambling simply because 1: look around and I see brothers, relatives and friends for whom gambling is an addictive disease. I have learnt that lesson over many years and it is one of the reasons why I shall be opposing the new clause tonight. I do not take any high moral ground; I oppose it simply on the basis of my own experience.
I view with some amusement the notion that the bookies will somehow end up in the poorhouse if we do not open the betting shops on Sundays. In my part of the world we used to say that there was no such thing as a thin bookie. Perhaps I would fit the part myself if I were that way inclined.
I have three simple reasons for opposing the new clause. First, I have little time for horse racing. I think that it is controlled by members of a certain class with a certain level of wealth who run it as a private club. I have no truck with it, although many members of my family, my party and my constituents would take great exception to that point. But that is my view and I hold by it.
If I have little time for the horse racing industry, I do not give a tinker's damn about bookmakers and the money that they fleece from people throughout the country in one way or another. I will give no succour to bookmakers at any point. So far as I am concerned, to encourage gambling at any level is another nail in the coffin of society as we know it. In my view, gambling is a sickness which ought to be treated and not encouraged.
My second reason for voting against the new clause is that it will do further damage to families with a gambling problem. I am no moral arbiter for families in my constituency or anywhere else, but I know what will happen to many people I have seen for whom the only respite at present is a Sunday, because during the week the man of the house—or, increasingly, the woman of the house—spends all day in the betting shop. We all know that that happens.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East talked about turning betting shops into leisure centres.

Mr. Paice: indicated dissent.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Or perhaps he said that betting shops should be regarded as part of the leisure industry—I think that he would accept that—but betting shops are really nothing but money-grinding machines for the bookies.
Thirdly, I oppose the new clause because I do not believe that the interests of the employees of the thousands of betting shops throughout the country will be protected. I am not convinced by the protestations of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East about the new schedule that he said would be added to protect employees' interests. Such measures have not worked before, and they will not work now. When the pressure is on, people who work part time in betting shops will face a clear choice: work on Sundays or be out of a job.

Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on his sterling work, and on the weight that he, as chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock committee, has borne on his shoulders in introducing the new clause and in promoting the interests of horse racing. My hon. Friend and I share an interest in horse racing. Although we represent different ends of the country, both our constituencies are important breeding and horse race training centres of excellence. I am in no doubt that the future of our horse racing industry will be enhanced by Sunday racing. That, above all else, is why I support it, and therefore why I support the new clause.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) asked why we require off-course as well as on-course betting. The Home Affairs Select Committee considered that question in detail when we inquired into the levy and the tote. In our report we recommended Sunday racing, but with on-course betting only. We cast our concerns on the strength of the argument about whether, if betting shops were closed, there would be illegal gambling. That was not the experience in Ireland. Three years later, however, having thought a great deal more about the subject, I believe that we need off-course as well as on-course betting. I will give my right hon. Friend two reasons why.
First, restricting betting to the course is fine for people who go to the race course, but if there were a meeting in Newbury, people who live in North Yorkshire and are involved in the racing industry there would not be able to go to Newbury, bet on the race, watch it as a live spectacle and collect their winnings, or whatever. In horse racing —and betting is a crucial part of the sport—we should have a national picture; everyone should be able to join in. If we closed the betting shops it would not be the wealthy who would lose, but the ordinary working man. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) was concerned about that. The ordinary working man, who has not got a telephone account with Ladbroke's or Coral's —in my opinion, for the reasons described by the hon. Member for Walton, perhaps he ought not to have one—would lose.
The second reason for having off-course betting is one that I mentioned earlier. I believe that over time it would boost the viability and prosperity of horse racing. That is what we all want to see. The crucial ingredient in that process is the levy, which comes from off-course rather than on-course betting. If one considers the Grand National, for example, the loss of that one race last year


meant that the levy was the poorer by some £750,000. We want some of the classic races which at present are raced on a Tuesday, a Wednesday or perhaps a Thursday with not only low attendances but relatively low turnover in the betting shop, to take place at the weekend. There are enough of them on Saturdays. The Saturday fixtures are full. We want some of them raced on a Sunday. We shall then see a bigger betting turnover and a bigger levy as a consequence. That does not in any way mean that there will be more racing.

Mr. Michael Jopling: You have blown it.

Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) says that we have blown it, but there is undoubtedly an opportunity for more people to take part in racing in their leisure time at the weekend—on Saturday and Sunday—than when they are on the factory floor or in the office from Monday to Friday.

Sir Peter Emery: To help clarify his argument, would my hon. Friend mind telling me how many classic races on the flat are held on a Saturday and if they are not, why they are not?

Mr. Greenway: A number of classics are raced on a Saturday—such as the St. Leger, which is raced over a mile and a half. The 2000 Guineas is raced on a Saturday. The Derby is raced on a Wednesday and the off-course betting turnover is much lower than, say, that of the Grand National. I believe that there would be a higher turnover if it were raced on a Sunday.
The next question to ask is how many races.

Mr. Michael Lord: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument. Earlier, we were told that there was no intention of over-stimulating weekend racing, that we would barely notice the difference for quite a few years and that it would all be very gentle. I suspect that my hon. Friend is letting the cat quietly out of the bag. He is saying that he wants the classics to be raced not just at the weekend, but specifically on a Sunday when a lot of people have more free time to get involved. However, that is also the precious free time that many Conservative Members want to preserve.

Mr. Greenway: That is up to my hon. Friend. If he wants to sit at home with his feet up in front of the fire on a Sunday afternoon, that is entirely up to him. He may choose to watch the racing or the football or to watch the repeat of "Coronation Street". Many working people are denied the choice of going to some of the classic races because they are raced on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. There is a three-day, mid-week meeting at York, and the Oaks trial has been run this afternoon in the past couple of hours. How many people who support racing can go to York races on a Tuesday afternoon?
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) anticipated the point to which I was coming. We are not talking about racing every Sunday—certainly not for the foreseeable future. We are not even talking necessarily about any extra race meetings. We are talking about some

race meetings which are currently held mid-week, including some of the classic races, being raced on a Sunday instead. All that we would be doing—

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I have already given way three times in what I had hoped would be a fairly short speech. All that we want to do is to improve the finances of racing. The Treasury recognised the importance of that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor certainly recognised that by reducing betting duty to stimulate the amount of money which could go back into racing, which is extremely important.
When every other major international and national sport takes place on a Sunday, we cannot expect to maintain a viable, long-term racing industry if one of the two main leisure days is denied to that industry by not having racing on Sunday. This is a unique opportunity for the House to put right a wrong that has existed for far too long. I therefore hope that the House will support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: First, I declare my interest in the issue. I am vice-chairman of the leisure and recreation industry group. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) rightly and sincerely made some valid points about the way in which addiction to gambling can come from licensed betting shops. The all-party racing and bloodstock committee would, of course, condemn any growth in such addiction.
In the past 10 years, social trends have changed rapidly. There are 10 million households in which the man and wife both work, and one or both may work on Saturdays or Sundays. A problem arises in relation to leisure. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Walton that when, as chairman of the all-party group, I address conferences such as the clubs' annual conference, I make it clear that there is no such thing as a benevolent brotherhood of bookmakers, bankers and brewers, although they are all obviously interested in the leisure and racing industries.
Leisure has become an integral part of racing. Racing is a real and large industry, which is dependent on the leisure industry. Only last week, Haydock Park had model exhibitions, fairs and May day celebrations—non-political in content—to supplement the income from racing. Increasingly, there is dual usage, with football pitches or even rugby pitches in the centre of race courses. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What about fishing?] Fishing or anything else will do. It is all part and parcel of our social network. It is imperative that there is support for the increase in activity that is envisaged over the next 10 or 15 years.
There is now freedom from the Sunday trading laws, despite the Lord's day observance societies and religious convictions. I say with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, who has the same religion as I do, that I go to mass on Saturday evening. Saturday is no longer the permanent shopping day and it will change further as the years go on. I have the right to follow my religious practice on Sunday morning, Sunday evening or Saturday night. My hon. Friend has the same right and I know that he uses it. That is a commendation in every sense of the word.
The present position discriminates against racing. Let us consider sports ranging from motor racing to model aeroplane flying, cricket or tennis. There is betting on


rugby in my part of the world every Sunday. The odds are set out on coupons, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walton knows something about coupons because he has pools offices in his constituency. The pools are a mild form of gambling—a friendly flutter.
Why does the punter bet? Why does he go into a betting shop? He is not there to drink diet coke or to play the machines that everyone is arguing about. The ordinary, average racing punter believes that he has expertise. He believes that if he studies the form, makes his assessment and reads all the papers, he will beat the bookmaker. That is entirely his business. If one goes into Stratton Ground market any morning, one sees the dear ladies nipping in to put a bob or two not only on horse racing, but on greyhound racing, which ought to be covered by the Bill. That is all part and parcel of a trend in leisure. It is not a question of addiction; professional gamblers are different from the ordinary punter. We should be aware of the changing times.

Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) said that the pools were a form of gambling and I noticed that some Conservative Members seemed to agree. Those of us who were members of the Committee which considered the National Lottery etc. Bill were told that the pools were a game of skill rather than gambling. I ask my hon. Friend to make a distinction. There is what happens on a course, including getting the maximum use from it and financing it. I understand the problem; as my hon. Friend pointed out, it applies to many different activities. That is different from the bookies crying out in the sticks because they will make an absolute fortune through the betting shops opening on Sunday. Sunday opening will increase the amount of gambling and will not shift gambling from mid-week.

Mr. Cunliffe: I have no scruples about the point made by my hon. Friend. I would tax the bookies' income further and further. For years and years, they have not made a substantial enough contribution to the industry through the levy. I would back my hon. Friend tooth and nail in saying that the bookies should make a greater contribution. If their income increases, they must pay more and at a higher rate. The matter will have to be looked at and I hope that the new horse racing board, the relevant Ministers—the matter may require the Home Secretary's decision—and all those involved will take note of our point. I accept that there is a difference between those who have a flutter and the professional punter.

Mr. Dennis Turner: To take up my hon. Friend's point about greyhound racmg, my understanding is that the new clause would embrace greyhound racing on Sunday. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are talking not just about horse racing, but about greyhound racing?

Mr. Cunliffe: I am talking about what is encompassed in the Bill. Because I was away last week at the Council of Europe, I have not had time to study the Bill in detail, but I accept that it would be wrong to discriminate between the greyhound racing industry and the horse racing industry. We swould give the Minister 100 per cent. support if he were receptive to the suggestion that greyhound racing should be included.

Mr. Paice: I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman in relation to greyhounds. I have a letter here from the British Greyhound Racing Board which says:
greyhound racing would like to be treated in precisely a similar manner as horse racing. We are pleased to see that new Clause I as drafted would indeed have that effect.
I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cunliffe: Perhaps the Minister will confirm that later.

Mr. Lord: rose—

Mr. Cunliffe: As a good Christian, I shall give way.

Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman talked about social trends and the way in which we had to go with the tide. Does he not acknowledge that the House has some part to play in the way in which the tide flows? Does he also take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that some of us have great difficulty with this matter? There is the question of allowing racing, and all that happens at the course, and there is the impact of betting shops being open on Sundays in all the towns and villages in the country. That is the difficulty for us.

Mr. Cunliffe: I understand the difficulty. As with the national lottery, it is not possible to forecast precisely the trends about which the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central and the right hon. Member for Honiton are concerned. Our friends the bookies are crying their eyes out because they claim that the national lottery will take 10 per cent. of their income. That is absolute nonsense. The bookies can do all the market research in the world. The punter—the professional boy—will be there and the amateur punter will be there anyhow. It will be his wife who will put a couple of quid on the lottery. The bookmakers bellyache all the time. Everyone knows that no one can accurately forecast the effect of the national lottery, and no one should have the effrontery to say what the effect on income and social trends of Sunday racing will be.
I welcome the initiative by the all-party racing and bloodstock group. I—and my forefathers before me—condemned the exclusive Jockey Club. No one could remove the veil over its decision-making. We had no input and the Jockey Club did not like intrusions. That has gone. Thank goodness for the initiative that has come from the new board and especially from Lord Hartington. That initiative has been complimented by the whole industry.
We now have an established horse racing board which can balance all the elements of the industry; it has balanced the elements correctly on this occasion. Whether it means the bookies paying more or somebody else paying less, the board is opening new doors to bring democracy and, for the first time, accountability to the job. That was unheard of in the past, but that is what we are doing today. All those people with worries, fears and anxieties are not necessarily wrong. I would not say that; it would be too presumptuous. There is a concern. It is up to us to manage it correctly and to demand accountability where it is required.

Mr. Jopling: I shall begin by declaring two interests: first, there is a minute number of shares in a northern race course which have my name on them, although I have no beneficial interest whatever from them; and, secondly, I have the honour of being president of the Auto Cycle Union, which is the governing body of all motor cycle sport in this country.
Having said that, I shall explain to the House why I think that the new clause is wrong. As I am president of the Auto Cycle Union, I have no objection whatever to horse racing—we can have as many horse races as we like on Sunday. But listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) saying that he did not think that there would be many race meetings on Sunday, and then listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who said that he wanted to see the 1,000 and 2,000 Guineas and perhaps the Oaks, the Derby and the Cheltenham gold cup run on Sunday, there seemed to be a slight inconsistency.
All that I can say is that my instinct is that if we have horse racing on Sunday, many race courses will wish to have meetings when they can attract big groups and where there will be a lot of public interest on television and in other ways. I suppose that many important races will gravitate to Sundays. I do not mind that in the least. However, we are not really talking about horse racing or greyhound racing specifically in the new clause; we are talking about betting on Sunday and we should confine ourselves to that.
I was interested in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said. We are extremely close friends, but I did not know that he had similar views to mine on this particular matter. Over many years—I have been in the House for almost 30 years—when I have received letters from my constituents urging me to keep Sunday special, I suppose that I have irritated a great many of them by saying that in general people should be allowed to do what they want on Sunday. However, I have always said that there are certain aspects of Sunday which should not be changed. I can think of no single thing that would make Sunday more like any other day than to introduce betting on Sunday.
I have always specifically said to my constituents that I would oppose betting on Sunday. Over the years, I have watched as a greater amount of gambling has crept into our way of living. We now have casinos—I was never especially happy about that. We have the lottery—I have never been a huge enthusiast for that. However, I have not got up in the House and opposed them. But when it comes to this final measure to extend gambling in this country to Sundays, I am opposed to it.
I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said about gambling and the extent to which it is a disease. I am sure that all hon. Members know families and individuals who have ruined their lives because of gambling. Therefore, we need to draw the line somewhere, and my line is drawn at this point. I hope that the House will follow my view that we have enough gambling already—and let us have no more of it.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I follow the wise words of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) that just as Members of Parliament should not simply follow tides, look at social trends and move along with those trends, it is also our duty to see the direction in which those trends are taking us and to ask whether the social effects are adverse or positive.
Although I must confess that I have been torn in different directions on the new clause, the decisive element for me is that which has been highlighted by the right hon.

Gentleman—that this is effectively a betting on Sunday clause. I confess that I know little about horse racing. I have been to only one race in my life and that was with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at a by-election. He did his best to explain horse racing to me, but I am afraid that he failed miserably.
I look at the Bill in the light of my views on Sunday. I was a patron of the Keep Sunday Special campaign. Much of the destruction of the pillars of Sunday will have adverse social effects. The enhancement of betting will change Sunday not only for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle)—that it is addictive—but because it will alter the character of Sunday.
When we waged the Keep Sunday Special campaign, one of the exceptions was leisure and sport. If one simply had the prospect of horses racing along a track, which is a fine country pursuit, no one could possibly take any great exception to that. However, what is at issue is not horse racing as such; rather, it is the industry behind it. We must look at the interests that are mobilised in favour of the Bill. They are not interests with which I would necessarily like to be linked.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) described the interests as those of the betting and racing industries. Those are large groups, which will have a substantial effect on Sunday. My hon. Friend said that it would be absurd simply to have on-course betting—his analogy was that, if there is a meeting in Newbury, his constituents in North Yorkshire should not be denied the opportunity of betting on that meeting. However, they will have an opportunity of betting six days of the week if they so want.
If horse racing is the motive, let the horse race take place. Why should the betting industry, which will be mobilised to support that, disturb and have an effect on and implications for each town throughout the country? Those are the interests that hide behind the new clause. They may say that it is like the nursemaid saying, "Madam, it is only a little baby at the moment." There will always be a slide, and continual creeping.
When the debate began, I confess that I did not realise that it related not only to horse racing but to greyhound racing as well. I concede that there is a certain logic in that —there is no easy way to differentiate between them. But this goes on and on and all the old landmarks which give Sunday some value will be eradicated and we shall worship mammon again in a massive way, simply by bowing to those who say that it suits their financial interests. That is wrong and I shall vote against the new clause because of the gambling implication.
In addition, I note the rather naive plea by the sponsors of the Bill for adequate employee protection. They say that they have lifted from the Sunday Trading Bill exactly the same fine protections as are available to those who work in supermarkets on Sunday. If the protections in the Sunday Trading Bill are adequate, anyone who practises law—I am a sort of lapsed lawyer; once upon a time I did some employment law—knows how inadequate are the remedies available to employees in industrial tribunals, as well as the fact that there is no reinstatement, that the onus of proof is on them, and the other catalogue of disadvantages which we discussed at great length on the Sunday Trading Bill. Some of my colleagues are naive if they think that those whom we are trying to protect should be prepared to


accept, as though it were a great triumph, exactly the same package of protection which—those colleagues claim—was so adequate in the Sunday Trading Bill.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) mentioned the inadequacy of the provisions that have been lifted from the Sunday Trading Bill, but there is an enormous swathe of people—stable lads and others—who will have their working lives mightily affected by the Bill. However, they will in no way be brought within the protection—however inadequate—which is contained in the new clause.
On two grounds—the massive encouragement that will be given to the powerful interests of the gambling industry and the inadequate employment protection—I will certainly be ready to vote against the new clause.

Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who has effectively sponsored the amendment and has played such an important part in the fortunes of the racing industry. He and I have the privilege of sharing the town and surrounding area of Nevvmarket —the racing capital of the world—in our constituencies.
I shall speak on one or two things and, first, employment. There has been a severe recession in the racing industry which we are now coming out of. About 30,000 people are employed directly in horse racing, and if we take all the ancillary services, we are talking about a total of some 100,000 people. As an employer, and as a potential employer, the potential change is very important.
Patterns of leisure have changed and every leisure industry needs the opportunity to adjust to that change. That has happened with other industries. Betting and racing are inextricably bound up. It is simply madness that one can go gambling legally in this country in a casino on a Sunday. Another absurd anomaly is that somebody can bet, using a form of credit, on a race meeting in another part of the world. These are things which make the present law look utterly foolish.
5 pm
Only off-course betting is subject to a levy which is used to finance racing. Without that off-course betting, Sunday racing's viability is weakened. The increase in betting turnover and levy payments will certainly help racing's finances. There are important spillover effects of the change. Prize money is still too low in this country and, of course, some of the levied funds are used for research into equines to fight disease and improve health. Comprehensive research will be helped by the increase in moneys going into the industry.
It is vital that we maintain the reputation of the British bloodstock industry as the finest in the world from the points of view of health, research and everything else. The British Sunday has changed, and it is now a leisure day. The amendment effectively recognises that and brings the racing industry into a competitive position with other leisure industries. It is good for racing's revenues, good for employment and, yes, it is even good for the Treasury.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I do not believe that the argument has been made for Sunday racing on the grounds of producing another area of leisure activity for the majority of people in this country. I do not believe that the majority of people fail to attend race tracks because the meetings are held in the middle of the week. I believe that they fail to attend because they cannot afford

the fare to the racecourse, the entrance fee, car parking charges or what seem to be astronomically high charges for refreshments.
The essential part which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) clarified was that the amendment is attempting to support the bloodstock and racing industry via the betting shop. I oppose the idea of off-track betting on Sunday, for two essential reasons. Of the 40,000 to 50,000 people employed in that industry, most are women. I cannot believe that they will find it easy to facilitate their duties as women within the home if they have to work on Sundays, as well as the six other days of the week.
I regret that I do not believe that the supposed work protection in the Sunday Trading Bill is any kind of protection at all. Evidence has been furnished by a cashier who worked for William Hill that, when evening racing came into being, employees were expected to work infinitely longer hours. If they did not accept those longer hours, they were instantly dismissed. Managers were expected to work from 10 am until 10 pm without any break, and certainly without any increase in remuneration. I do not believe that that position will be altered dramatically for the majority of women who work in betting shops.
We are hearing the paradoxical argument more and more in the House that, while everyone must have choices, we preclude increasing numbers of our citizens by forcing them to work on Sunday. Their choice seems to be totally and utterly negated.
I make my second point on behalf of my constituents. The majority of high street betting shops—certainly in my constituency—are located very close to where people live. They are underneath blocks of flats, and are in streets close to terraced houses. I would not wish to paint a picture of the British punter as incapable of placing a bet without a can of alcoholic liquid in his or her hand. The majority of people who like to have a little flutter by no means behave in that way. However, I have noticed an increasing tendency for people who become increasingly inebriated during the day to find their favourite spot outside the betting shop, be it on the pavement, on the doorstep next door or leaning on the wall of the betting shop. It seems particularly hard that my constituents will suffer that nuisance and harassment every day of the week if the amendment goes through.
I strongly endorse the arguments which have been made on both sides of the House that there is something special about Sunday. Even though legislation has been passed which seems to have essentially destroyed that special nature of Sunday, we should reject the amendment.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: It should be said that the horse racing industry is undoubtedly part of the leisure industry. Cinemas are open on Sunday, people go to motor racing on Sunday and thousands of people go to football matches on Sunday. There have been cricket matches on Sunday for as far back as I can remember, and there are golf matches on Sunday. Nobody objects to that at all. I wonder why an exception is made for horse racing.
If there is horse racing on Sunday, it could be in many cases a good family outing. Where I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) is that I would get no pleasure at all if I went to a horse race meeting and did not have a bet or a little flutter. That is part of the fun. [Interruption.] The hon.


Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) is laughing because he knows all too well that I am known as the bookie's friend.
I must also declare an interest in that I am a consultant to the National Association of Bookmakers. I sometimes wonder whether I was appointed to that post because I had given them so much money. My father always used to criticise me for betting, but I inherited it from him. From when I was a child, I remember my father putting bets on. In those days, there were no betting shops and he had to take his bet to a bookie's runner, who then took it to somebody else. If the runner was caught in the process, he was put in court and fined. One reason why the law was changed in the 1960s was to stop all that.
My father always said that getting one winner was hard enough. I do things like yankees—where one picks four horses—heinz, canadians and super bets.

Mr. Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend win?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: No, I do not. That is the whole point.
In response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), I do not bet with the mortgage or housekeeping money. For my sins, many years ago I smoked, but I have stopped smoking. I suppose that I now spend on gambling the money that I used to spend on cigarettes. Perhaps the money goes to a better cause—to the bookies rather than to the tobacco manufacturers. [Interruption.] My money does go up in smoke.
I do multi-bets because, during an Ascot season in the 1960s, a man put on a half-crown yankee—that shows how long ago it was—at the betting shop I went to, and he won over £1,000. The following day, the betting shop put the bet on its notice board and said, "How's this for luck?" Ever since the 1960s it has been my dream that one day my betting slip would be held up in a betting shop and someone would say, "How's this for luck?" It has not happened yet, but I live in hope.
If no betting is allowed at the courses, there will be illegal betting. That is the very thing that we tried to stamp out all those years ago. If people want to bet, they will find a way to do so.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman make a distinction between betting on course and opening betting shops all round the country? We have heard the arguments about the levy and the way in which the money filters through, but the hon. Gentleman knows, as I know, that the money would go to the bookies first and foremost. Why cannot a distinction be made between the course where the meeting is being held and bookies the length and breadth of the country?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: That point was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). He said that if a race meeting was held on a Sunday in the south it would be difficult for someone from the north to go to the course. At least if the betting shops are open, someone who takes an interest in horse racing can have a flutter.
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that not all bookmakers are rich. A long time ago, my father started out as a bookmaker. The result went wrong in the

Manchester handicap. The horse that he wanted to win lost by a short head. So from being prosperous when I was a child, my family was no longer prosperous and my father had to go back to the factory and eke out a living there. Bookmakers take a risk. If the favourites come in regularly, the bookmakers do not have a good day. The bookies like the outsiders to win. That is why they like me to win. I back outsiders. Perhaps that is because I am a Conservative.
The horse racing industry is part of the leisure industry and we cannot continue to treat it differently to the rest of the leisure industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East on moving the new clause and I hope that the House will approve it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) told us of his great desire that some day he might see his winning bet up in a shop. He should take into consideration all the money that he will have lost from the day he started to bet until the day he has his bet put up in a shop. There is no doubt that, with more outlets for gambling, this nation is suffering loss among many of its people. I serve a working-class congregation. I have served for 48 years among the teeming thousands of east Belfast. I know the heartache and the heartbreak that has come to decent working-class homes as a result of gambling and betting. As the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said, the new clause is about betting.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) told us about the bellyaching of the bookies. We are here discussing the matter because of the bellyaching of the bookies. The influence of big gambling linked to horse racing is pushing the matter to the fore in the House of Commons. If that big gambling interest did not exist, the bellyaching of the bookies would not be listened to. I have many bookies in my constituency. They are always bellyaching and telling me, "You know, we are not making money." One has only to look at their homes and the type of life that they live to give the lie to what they are bellyaching about. Their main desire is more money and more money, no matter what way they get it.
The House cannot have it both ways. We have been told by some today that everyone should have a free choice. I believe in that. I believe that on Sundays people should do what they want to do. They stand before their maker. For myself, I believe that I have to keep the Sabbath day holy. That is my religious conviction and I practise it, but I cannot say to any other man that he must keep Sunday as I do. He will answer to the great God on the day of judgment.
People talk about choice, but they do not give any choice to the people who will be employed so that they can have their sport, their pleasure and their leisure activity. They do not care about taking a husband from his family, a mother from her family, a son from his family, or a daughter from her family on Sunday and making those people work to give them pleasure. What I ask for myself, I am prepared to give to everyone else. I say that employees should have a choice. Let no one believe that the bellyaching bookies will give better positions, a better rate of pay and better working conditions to the people they employ. They will employ those people at the same miserable rates at which they employ them now. Let us be clear about that.
5.15 pm
We have heard it said today that the legislation on Sunday opening will safeguard employees. I have received complaint after complaint already from many of my constituents that they are told, "It is best for you not to object to working on Sunday." One firm in my city is offering a 50 per cent. discount on any article that employees want to buy if they will work on Sundays. If they object to working on Sundays, they will not have that discount. Let us not think in the House today that the safeguards in the Sunday trading legislation will protect the people who work on the racecourses, in the stables and in the betting shops. Have they been asked? Some hon. Members who have spoken today give the impression that they can speak with authority on behalf of those people. Surely they should be asked what they want and desire on Sundays.
I find that the best thing for a family on Sunday is to be all together and to have a time when they can talk over the matters that tie the family together. If it is their will to go to the house of God on Sunday, I would say that that is what they should be doing, but I have only the power of persuasion. We can only persuade people to do it. That is the only power we have. If people do not do it, it is their loss. It is a sad loss because it takes away the cement of the family. Anything that takes away the cement of the family today and pulls down the bricks of the family is dangerous today for many of the bricks are already falling out and much of the cement has been taken away. Therefore, tonight my colleagues and I will vote against the new clause.

Rev. William McCrea: Many things are vital to the well-being of our nation. However, ii: would stretch the imagination very far to suggest that the social fabric of our society would be threatened if the House rejected new clause 1. Unfortunately, one must admit that much of the moral fabric of our society and nation is under attack and has been under attack by legislation passed both in Europe and in the House. It is no wonder that our nation is in many ways going down the drain. Surely it is time that we drew a line. Surely the House has a right to give a lead to the nation.
Many people recognise the growth of betting addiction. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) spoke of his father's warning about the bets that he was placing. His father had not set a proper example. As a pastor, I find this rather interesting, as I know that multitudes of fathers—even Members of the House—have learnt from their own behaviour and have warned their families not to make the same mistake. Surely that is what a father ought to do. The suggestion that a person should not to warn his son of such dangers is rather strange. Many a person who has ended up as a drunkard on the street would be happy to warn his son not to take the same route. People with love in their hearts will warn their offspring of the dangers.
I am amazed by hon. Members' use of the word "flutter" to describe betting. It makes the activity sound very innocent, whereas the reality is that in many homes the money that should be spent on bread and clothes flutters away, and the children are left to pay the very sad price. The suggestion that gambling is an innocent activity about which one need not be concerned is far from the reality to be found in housing estates and towns in our constituencies.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman know that many unemployed people are wickedly exploited by the betting industry? I refer in particular to caterers who bus in, over great distances, unemployed people who have no hope of other employment. For example, people are brought from areas of relatively high unemployment, like Newport, and are paid disgracefully low wages. Virtually all those workers are women. Surely it is right to oppose this new clause, which would do something about the vultures involved in catering for the racing industry, who exploit the misery of the unemployed.

Rev. William McCrea: I wholeheartedly agree. There are indeed vultures ready to take advantage of people in the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described. It is amazing that some hon. Members who ought to know better are not raising their voices in defence of these people.
We have heard it said that, if betting were leading to addiction, the industry would condemn it. That sounds very pious and fine. However, pious words of condemnation and expressions of sorrow will not remove the grief of families caught in the trap of their loved ones' addiction. The price of addiction is paid by the family. It is all very well for a Member of Parliament, with his salary, to say that he is waiting for his name to come up on the list of winners. Many of the people about whom we are talking cannot afford the addiction in which they are caught. Nor can their families.
This legislation is intended to benefit one group of people—the bookmakers. In my constituency there are certainly no poor bookmakers. However, I know hundreds of very poor families whose fathers and sons have been enticed into this activity.
I should like, finally, to refer to protection for the rights of workers involved in Sunday betting duties. As for hon. Members who say that they champion workers' rights, how can it be that, in the case of Sunday trading, the paramount desire was to enable shops to open? Anyone who suggests that this Bill or the legislation on Sunday trading—

Mr. Cunliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman declare how he voted on the social contract?

Rev. William McCrea: I am talking about Sunday trading. I apologise to no one for consistently supporting legislation that defends the rights of workers. Unfortunately, members of the hon. Gentleman's party who said that they were for the workers were happy to go into the Lobby to ensure that there was no real protection for those very people. That is despicable. Anyone who suggests that the legislation we are considering will give protection to the people who are brought in to work as a result of its provisions is totally naive or just does not care.
I hope that the House will reject the new clause.

Mr. Robin Cook: The matter before us is one of individual conscience on which, on both sides of the House, there are deeply held views. For this reason the Opposition will give its Members a free vote. That being the case, I speak in the debate not for my party but for myself.
It would be idle to try to conceal from a House that is already aware of it the fact that I speak also as an enthusiastic racegoer. The next time I go to the races on a Saturday, I should be very happy to take my hon. Friend


the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) along. We could probably visit the silver ring, access to which, at most racecourses in Britain, can be had for £2 or £3, or the Tattersall's enclosure, the cost of access to which, in most cases, is still between £5 and £7. In those enclosures my hon. Friend would find working people. They are there on a Saturday, and not between Monday and Friday, because they have jobs which, by and large, require more punctiliousness about attendance between Monday and Friday than does membership of the House of Commons.
The argument for providing a race meeting on a Sunday for the convenience of those who wish to enjoy the sport is demonstrated by a look at what happens with other sports. Before coming into the Chamber I looked at yesterday's edition of The Times. There I found four pages of reports on sporting activities that had taken place on Sunday. Premier football league matches are held on Sunday, as—obviously—are Sunday cricket league games. This applies also to the Stone's rugby league. Any hon. Member fortunate enough to have Sunday afternoon off from constituency work will have been able to watch golf or to witness Mark Todd's win at the horse trials.
The reason for the fact that all those sports are held on a Sunday is blindingly obvious: Sunday is the day on which most people are able to attend. It is the day when sports organisers can secure the biggest crowds. It is the day when most people who want to enjoy sport are able to do so. I have no difficulty with the assertion of the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) that there should be choice. People who want to exercise that choice by watching their favourite sport should have the right to do so.
I make no bones about the fact that one reason why all those other sports are provided on a Sunday is that they draw the biggest crowds and bring in the largest amount of money on that day. Racing is entitled to the same opportunity of maximising its income.
5.30 pm
I understand that next week the Opposition and the Government will lock horns on the question of competitiveness. Possibly, in this moment of truce, I can concede that we are discussing racing, which is competitive. In Europe, only France and Ireland can match Britain's horse racing industry. Both France and Ireland allow racing on a Sunday. I would hesitate to say that either of them is less Christian than Britain or—without wishing to provoke further interventions from the hon. Members for Antrim, North and Mid-Ulster—Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfoyle: If racecourses were opened on Sundays —at £2, £3, £5 or whatever—and more people wanted to use them, which would be a matter for the courses, why do we need to allow betting shops to open the length and breadth of the country?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is taking me further ahead in my speech. May I reach that question in my own time? I will be happy to deal with that serious matter at that time and to give way.
Because France and Ireland provide racing on Sundays, one can bet on Sundays in Britain. All one needs is a good enough credit rating to ring up and place a credit bet at

Longchamps or Leopardstown. I do not see why we should deny that opportunity to the cash punter, who does not have a large enough turnover to warrant a credit account. By continuing to ban racing on Sundays, we are perpetuating the racing industry's history of being run to suit the wealthy and privileged, who can get off between Monday and Friday, and not working men who provide most of its income but gain the least of its attentions.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) made some trenchant observations about the nature of working life in the racing industry. Candidly, those of us who enjoy racing cannot take any pride in the way that staff in that industry are treated. They are often badly paid and have poor career development, and their accommodation at some racecourses is rather inferior to the quality of accommodation for the horses.
What does it take to put that right? Money. The best way to get more money into the racing industry is to take advantage of the growth in the leisure market. The best way to do that is to provide racing on the day when most people have time for leisure. That is why, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs examined the matter, both the Stable Lads Association and the Transport and General Workers Union impressed on it that they did not object to Sunday racing with proper protection. That is why the Jockeys Association of Great Britain has come out in support of Sunday racing in the past week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) mentioned off-course betting and I know that concern for the staff in that industry underlies much of my hon. Friend's concern. My preferred outcome would be Sunday racing with on-course betting, without necessarily having off-course betting. The Select Committee took that position three years ago. I recognise, however, that the Home Office and other people have expressed considerable concern about consequent illegal betting if racing took place without off-course betting. If we believe that we have a social problem with legalised off-course betting, I warn the House that we are likely to have more serious social problems with illegal off-course betting.
I invite hon. Members to reflect on what might happen if the Derby, which takes place on a Wednesday, were transferred to a Sunday. It is difficult to conceive how one could stage that race without inevitable widespread betting throughout Britain. If that is to happen, it would be better if it took take place within a legalised setting.
I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who said that he drew the line at betting on a Sunday. I could understand that view if we were drawing the line at gambling. I have some difficulty in drawing a line that allows casinos to open on Sundays, and thus allows gambling to take place, and allows credit betting but not cash betting. For that matter, a recent decision of the House will shortly allow lottery tickets to be bought on a Sunday, but not betting. We are not keeping Sunday special. At best, as the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, we may be keeping it slightly special.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Surely there is a difference in kind between some of my hon. Friend's examples and allowing betting shops to open throughout the length and breadth of the country in small towns and large cities as a direct result of the new clause.

Mr. Cook: Obviously, it is a matter of individual conscience and application. My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to apply to the question his own judgments about taste, discrimination and good sense. I find it difficult to distinguish between the character of credit betting by telephone and cash betting over the counter, except that credit betting is confined to people who tend to be better off and have better credit ratings and excludes people who do not have access to that privilege on a Sunday.
I offer some words of advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), whose speech was so trenchantly opposed to the bookmakers. I not sure whether he is aware that the Betting Office Licensees Association and the big bookmakers have been lobbying vigorously against the schedule before the House. If he wants to get up the noses of Ladbroke, Hill and Coral, the best way to do so is to vote for the schedule, to which they are strongly opposed. The more they protest about the protection of staff, the more I am convinced that the schedule must be carried. I hope that the Minister appreciates that the two go together.
We have had a good debate and hon. Members have spoken honestly, frankly and without rhetoric. The House should not make the mistake of failing to recognise the changing character of Sunday. I believe and have observed in my area that families still spend Sunday together, but they do not spend it attending church and sitting at home. They want to go out. Sunday is now the day of the family outing—the day when leisure centres do their biggest business. Racing is well placed to tap that growing market for a special Sunday outing. It provides a spectacle of colour and action. For me, racing provides the most exciting spectacle.
What particularly impressed me about the three experimental Sunday race meetings was not that they attracted large crowds, but that they attracted crowds of families, who came to enjoy racing together.

Mr. Kilfoyle: If families are attracted to the racecourse, who will be attending betting shops on Sundays?

Mr. Cook: That is a perfectly fair question. At present betting shops are on the whole visited by solitary people. Possibly we need to consider the nature of the service provided at betting shops. Perhaps that could be amended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walton is entitled to exercise his judgment about whether he would attend a betting shop or a race meeting on a Sunday, but at Cheltenham, Doncaster and Lingfield I saw many families who had chosen to spend the day together attending Sunday racing.

Sir Peter Emery: I know that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his speech, so I am even more thankful that he has given way. He was making a powerful plea for families to go together to sports meetings on Sundays and for racing to be included. I do not believe that families go to betting shops. Many of us object to betting shops being open on a Sunday and not to racing on a Sunday.

Mr. Cook: The right hon. Member must recognise that he faces a choice. It is not a choice that I find comfortable. I wish that we did not have to make it. I would be delighted if I could go racing on a Sunday. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, quite fairly, I have an adequate income to travel a considerable distance

to get to a race meeting on a Sunday. The right hon. Member must face the fact that, if there is racing on Sundays, there will be people who cannot afford the cost of going to a meeting but who will want to bet on a race. If that were to happen, should it happen legally and unofficially, with all its social consequences, or should it happen in licensed betting shops on a legal basis? My judgment is that it is better that it takes place on a legalised basis, but I have been persuaded—albeit I wish that it was not necessary to be so persuaded—that we cannot have racing on Sundays without off-course betting.
Let me return to the point that I was addressing before giving way. The Sunday experimental meetings were particularly impressive because of the large family attendances. They were particularly satisfactory for families because racecourses cover a large area which can be used to provide something for all the family.
I believe that the way forward for Sundays is to provide a real family day out. The way forward for racing is to offer families that day out. It is inevitable that one day racing will be able to provide that on a Sunday. I hope that it will be able to start after tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): This is a moment that I shall savour, as I shall not often be able to say that I agreed almost entirely with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). When he knows what he is talking about, he can make very good sense.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on seizing the initiative on Sunday racing and betting—a subject on which there have been several private Members' Bills which failed to get through the House. I quite understand why my hon. Friend would want to advance his cause while there is an opportunity for a Government Bill.
The Government wanted the House to have an early opportunity, after Sunday trading had been decided, freely to reach a decision on the various issues. However, we had envisaged a full consultation by the Government with the industry and others, so that the House could reach a conclusion in the confidence that all the issues had been properly aired and that the choices properly reflected the voice of those affected by the measure. My hon. Friend has jumped the gun and come out of the starting gate before that opportunity arose. I do not criticise him in any way. This is an admirable opportunity to do what he has done, and I welcome it.
The Government have no objection to the new clause in principle, but as there has not been an opportunity for the considered study that we would have wished, it may be more controversial than it might otherwise have been. In particular, the measures on employment protection, which mirror precisely those in the Sunday Trading Bill, will need to be examined to ensure that they are appropriate in the different context of the betting industry.
As the hon. Member for Livingston said, such issues divide people on conscientious grounds, and it would be inappropriate for the Whips to be too active in advising hon. Members on how to vote. As this has traditionally been an issue on which the Conservative party allows a free vote, we are content for that to be so today and, if the matter is pressed to a vote, for it to be resolved without the assistance of the Whips.
There are differing views in the Conservative party. As there has to be an article on the front page of the papers


every day about splits in the Government, I can confirm that I shall be voting one way and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will be voting the other way.
I have listened with care to the arguments advanced by those who spoke against the new clause today. There are those who, for conscientious or religious reasons, believe in sabbatarianism to a greater or lesser extent and naturally oppose the new clause. I am afraid that I do not share that view, although I recognise that substantial numbers of people do.
There have been some spirited speeches against what has been described as the disease of gambling, not least by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), whose constituency abuts Aintree racecourse. I last saw the hon. Member for Livingston at the races where I discovered, in the words that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) used many times in Committee, that he is a jolly decent cove. I hope that it will in no way diminish his stature in the House if I say that I discovered him to be a very warm human being.
Of course, any innocuous activity can be abused if it is indulged to excess, but as a matter of general principle we do not take the view that, because a very small minority of people might not be able to control themselves or might abuse the freedoms we have in society, we should deny those freedoms to everybody else. We have to make a balanced judgment in each individual case as to the appropriate course of action.
I cannot envisage that, as a result of the proposed changes, which I warmly support, the nation will suddenly be plunged into a hell-hole of gambling the like of which we have never seen before. The addition to the opportunities to bet, which most people use sparingly and with judgment, will not be great.
5.45 pm
The Government accept that the principle of employment protection for betting workers ought to feature in the measure to ensure that Sunday working is voluntary. Should the House vote in favour of Sunday racing in new clause 1, the Government will accept amendment No. 1, but as it is technically deficient in a number of ways on account of its being drafted in such a way as to mirror the shops legislation, some elements in it are not appropriate. I will give a example to illustrate my point because I know that Opposition Members will be suspicious of these remarks and it is better that their suspicions should be dispelled as soon as possible.
Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the proposed new schedule cover the effect of rights on contracts of employment. Unlike shops, the ban on the opening of betting offices in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 is a total one. As a result, betting office workers cannot be required to work on a Sunday. Therefore, the provisions relating to existing contracts of shopworkers may not be required for betting workers. We shall have to consider whether this is an appropriate way of drafting the measure.
Schedule 4 of the Sunday Trading Bill distinguishes between protected shop workers and opted-out workers. That arises from the fact that some existing shopworkers may be required to work on Sundays. The position of betting workers is different, so it may not be necessary to make a similar distinction in providing new rights for betting workers. I confirm that it is not the Government's

intention to produce legislation in which betting workers are treated in any way less favourably than those who work in shops on Sundays.
The provisions of new clause 1 are almost wholly benign and will be regarded generally in the country as non-controversial. There may be some resource implications for local authorities which supervise the tracks and there will certainly be manpower implications for the police, should Sunday racing become a regular feature, so we would have preferred to undertake consultation with those enforcement bodies, as they would have expected, before such changes were brought before the House. Nevertheless, before the measure is debated in another place, we shall seek to consult all such affected parties so as to take their views properly into account.
With regard to employment protection, there will be those who will be expect to be consulted on the measure before it is debated in another place. Employment measures are primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. While he is content in principle for provision to be made to ensure that Sunday working by betting workers is voluntary, he wishes to consult further. The proposed new schedule, as it suffers from the technical flaws to which I have referred, may be more complicated than necessary. I hope that it will not be pressed in the House but will be withdrawn on the basis of the assurances I have given today that, in another place, the Government will introduce an appropriate measure to achieve the effects that I have described.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's last sentence did not chime with his earlier sentences. If there is some defect in the schedule, plainly there would be no objection to the correction of those defects and technical problems in the other place, particularly if those amendments do not in any way change the present protection provided by that schedule. The Minister may be putting the House in a difficult position by suggesting that the schedule should not be carried today. He is then inviting the House to approve the new clause without seeing precisely what protection will be provided by the schedule.

Mr. Hamilton: I wish to preserve the amity of the debate and show the flexibility of which I am capable. If the hon. Gentleman suspects that the Government would not come forward with amendments that he might approve, which may diminish his enthusiasm for supporting this liberalising measure, I shall immediately do a U-turn and say that we shall recommend to my hon. Friends that they support the schedule on the basis that we shall seek to amend it in the House of Lords to correct the technical deficiencies that I mentioned a moment ago. After that illustration of verbal dexterity, I have little more to say.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) asked why betting shops should be opened off course. The hon. Member for Livingston referred to the danger of illegal off-course betting developing. By definition, it would be unregulated and subject to greater dishonesty and criminality. We know from the experience recounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) that there were many such examples in the days when betting shops were illegal. People naturally seek the best price at which to bet, and on the day before a race a starting price would not be available which reflected the latest conditions of the course or the


horses. Many people would leave betting until shortly before a race in the light of the latest prices being offered on the course.
As the hon. Member for Livingston pointed out, if some of the big classified races were held on Sundays, the temptation for illegal betting would be almost irresistible. He would not wish that to happen, so it would be much better to treat betting shops in the same way as on-course betting. As there would be no significant risk to the public, I commend the measure to all Members of the House.

Mr. Paice: With the leave of the House, I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. As I suspect we all know, the debate has shown that this issue raises considerable passion in some quarters. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who is the Whip on this Bill, told me that his support for the measure was in inverse proportion to the length of the debate, so I shall conclude matters quickly. Rather than respond to all the individual points made by many hon. Members, which would detain the House and be unsatisfactory, I shall make just two points.
First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and many others referred to on and off-course betting. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs referred to the illegal betting that would spring up, particularly if major races took place on Sundays. It has also been suggested that people could bet the previous day. People always like to bet close to the time of a race. One good reason is that runners often withdraw up until the last few hours before a race, so that any bet becomes invalid. That is a sound reason why people need to bet close to the time of the race.
Secondly, I understand that feelings differ among hon. Members on both sides of the House about employee protection, but it would be inequitable to offer anything other than the same provisions as those in the Sunday Trading Bill. Some people may think that that is not enough and others may believe that it goes too far. I believe that it is a compromise on the amount of protection to which the House agreed in one context and should accept in another.

Mr. Jopling: I have no objection to racing taking place on Sundays, but if betting did not take place on Sundays, the bookmaking fraternity—I should have declared an interest as I sometimes advise one of the large bookmaking firms, although it will not be pleased with what I am about to say—would immediately change its rules and take bets on Saturdays to exclude non-runners on Sundays.

Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend omits a serious point. When people place bets, they look at all the runners. If one runner withdraws, even if it is a horse on which they have not bet, it may throw the odds on all the others, which is why it is necessary to bet close to the time of the event.
The time is now right for the House to remove the discrimination against the racing industry. I have listened to the debate and am anxious that we should allow racing to compete with the rest of the leisure industry. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 189.

Division No. 223]
[5.55 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dowd, Jim


Alexander, Richard
Duncan, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Allen, Graham
Elletson, Harold


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ashby, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evennett, David


Atkins, Robert
Faber, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas


Austin-Walker, John
Fatchett, Derek


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, Dudley


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Barron, Kevin
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bayley, Hugh
Fraser, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Bermingham, Gerald
Gapes, Mike


Berry, Roger
Gardiner, Sir George


Betts, Clive
Garnier, Edward


Blair, Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Boyes, Roland
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Godsiff, Roger


Bright, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burden, Richard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Butler, Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Byers, Stephen
Hague, William


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Canavan, Dennis
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sydney
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Doug


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coffey, Ann
Home Robertson, John


Colvin, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cran, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cummings, John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Janner, Greville


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert






Kirkhope, Timothy
Rathbone, Tim


Kirkwood, Archy
Redmond, Martin


Knapman, Roger
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Reid, Dr John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Knox, Sir David
Riddick, Graham


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Legg, Barry
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Leigh, Edward
Rooker, Jeff


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lightbown, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sackville, Tom


Litherland, Robert
Salmond, Alex


Livingstone, Ken
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McAllion, John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McKelvey, William
Soames, Nicholas


Maclean, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, Sir David
Spring, Richard


Major, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mandelson, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mans, Keith
Steen, Anthony


Marland, Paul
Stevenson, George


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maxton, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meale, Alan
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Miller, Andrew
Thumham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Trend, Michael


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Trotter, Neville


Moss, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mowlam, Marjorie
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Needham, Richard
Walden, George


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Norris, Steve
Watts, John


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wells, Bowen


O'Neill, Martin
Whitney, Ray


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Whittingdale, John


Ottaway, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Page, Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Patchett, Terry
Willetts, David


Patnick, Irvine
Wilshire, David


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wilson, Brian


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wood, Timothy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Worthington, Tony


Pendry, Tom
Wray, Jimmy


Pickles, Eric
Yeo, Tim


Pope, Greg
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)



Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr. James Paice and


Prescott, John
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Radice, Giles





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Bates, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Alton, David
Beggs, Roy


Amess, David
Bell, Stuart


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Bennett, Andrew F.


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blunkett, David





Body, Sir Richard
Khabra, Piara S.


Booth, Hartley
Kilfedder, Sir James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Brazier, Julian
Lewis, Terry


Butcher, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Callaghan, Jim
Lord, Michael


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McCartney, Ian


Cann, Jamie
McCrea, Rev William


Chisholm, Malcolm
Macdonald, Calum


Churchill, Mr
McFall, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
McMaster, Gordon


Clelland, David
McWilliam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Madden, Max


Connarty, Michael
Maginnis, Ken


Corbett, Robin
Mahon, Alice


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marek, Dr John


Cormack, Patrick
Martlew, Eric


Corston, Ms Jean
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Cousins, Jim
Michael, Alun


Dafis, Cynog
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dalyell, Tam
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Davidson, Ian
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Morley, Elliot


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Mullin, Chris


Day, Stephen
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Devlin, Tim
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Donohoe, Brian H.
O'Hara, Edward


Dover, Den
Olner, William


Dunn, Bob
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eagle, Ms Angela
Paisley, Rev Ian


Eastham, Ken
Parry, Robert


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Enright, Derek
Pickthall, Colin


Etherington, Bill
Pike, Peter L.


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Fisher, Mark
Quin, Ms Joyce


Forman, Nigel
Randall, Stuart


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Raynsford, Nick


Foulkes, George
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Fry, Sir Peter
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Fyfe, Maria
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Galbraith, Sam
Rooney, Terry


Gallie, Phil
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Galloway, George
Rowlands, Ted


Garrett, John
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


George, Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian


Graham, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Grocott, Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gunnell, John
Simpson, Alan


Hall, Mike
Sims, Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Skinner, Dennis


Hanson, David
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hardy, Peter
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Harris, David
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'ld'ds E)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hinchliffe, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Soley, Clive


Hutton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Illsley, Eric
Spellar, John


Ingram, Adam
Spink, Dr Robert


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Stephen, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Straw, Jack


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Streeter, Gary


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Jowell, Tessa
Turner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Wallace, James






Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wolfson, Mark


Waterson, Nigel
Wright, Dr Tony


Wilkinson, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Donald Anderson and


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Paul Flynn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 5

HEALTH AND SAFETY

'No order shall be made under section 1 of this Act which includes any provision amending or repealing any enactment relating to the health and safety of any person'. —[Mr. Fatchett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this we may take New clause 8 — Approval of certain markets (No. 2)
'(1) Where a person proposes to set up a commercial market that person shall apply to the local authority in whose area he proposes to set up the market for approval of the setting up of that market.
(2) Where an application for the grant or renewal of approval has been made under subsection (1) above to a local authority, the local authority shall—

(a) give or renew that approval subject to such reasonable conditions as the local authority think fit; or
(b) refuse to give that approval, provided that approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

(3) A grant or renewal of approval under subsection (2) above shall cease to have effect after a period of twelve months beginning with the date on which it is granted or such other longer period as the local authority giving or renewing the approval may determine.
(4) The local authority may charge a reasonable fee in respect of an application for the grant or renewal of an approval under subsection (2) above and different fees may be charged for different classes, sizes and locations of market.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order make further provision as to approvals and regulation in relation to the setting up of commercial markets.
(6) A person who sets up a rival commercial market without approval of the setting up of that market having been given or as the case may be renewed under subsection (2) above, or who carries on such a market in breach of any conditions attached to the grant or renewal of an approval, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(7) In this section, "local authority", "market" and "right of market", have the same meaning as in section 22 above and "commercial market" means a market other than a market

(a) which is a temporary market within the meaning of section 37 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982; and
(b) the proceeds of which are to be applied solely or principally for charitable, social, sporting or political purposes.'.

Mr. Fatchett: We may have moved from a consensual position—at least for the Front Benches—to an issue that will give rise to some controversy. New clause 5 would remove any reference to health and safety from what will be section 1; we argue that provisions for health and safety, both at work and generally, should not be dealt with by means of the general powers included in the Bill.
In a speech to the European Policy Forum last autumn, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was quoted as saying:
Our response to recent large scale disasters has been out of all proportion to the disasters themselves.
He went on to mention our reaction to the Kings Cross fire —in which at least 30 people were killed—and the Marchioness disaster, in which 50 people were drowned.
I am not making a personal attack on the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. The powers in the Bill will be given to Ministers generally, allowing them to amend and repeal health and safety provision and to affect security that has been built up over decades and generations. I have quoted the Parliamentary Under-Secretary merely to make the important point that he and, I suspect, other Ministers—especially those at the Department of Employment—approach the issue with a particular perspective and a particular ideological bent. That is why we seek to remove any reference to health and safety from the first four clauses of the Bill.
We have said throughout that we find the powers in those first four clauses unacceptable, and that they should in no circumstances be used to repeal primary legislation; we are now arguing that they should not be used to deal with health and safety provisions. Let me demonstrate the extent of the problems. Health and safety is a vast issue, which should be dealt with separately from the specific powers in the first four clauses. The record shows that there are 1.6 million workplace accidents each year, and that 2 million people suffer from occupational diseases; in 1991, 473 people were killed at work. Those statistics represent costs to individuals and their immediate families, and burdens on business.
There is also a cost to the economy. The cost of industrial accidents and disease is estimated to be some £16,000 million a year. Moreover, a recent publication from the Royal College of Nursing drew attention to the costs of accidents and injuries at work to a certain NHS hospital, estimating that 5 per cent. of that hospital's running costs would relate to industrial injuries and illnesses.
New clause 5, however, relates not just to industrial provision but to
the health and safety of any person".
Opposition Members fear that the Government may intend to amend or repeal fire safety regulations, thus reducing the safety and security of certain people. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) is well aware of last week's tragic events in his constituency: he responded to them by calling for tougher regulation and more inspections, and we support and respect what he said. He was also right to suggest that many landlords are using the social security system to provide housing for multiple occupation which does not meet standards that should be met in a civilised society.
Having read some of the newspaper reports of those tragic events, I feel that the hon. Gentleman's comments were appropriate; and they are also relevant to the Bill, given that it is a deregulation Bill that attempts to remove existing provision and security. I should have thought that last week's events in Scarborough showed that, on the contrary, we should tighten provision and improve inspection and standards.
6.15 pm
The statistics make my case compellingly. They reveal that an average of 800 people a year are killed in fire-related incidents in the United Kingdom, which has a higher fire death rate per million than any other European Union country. Each year, moreover, deaths resulting from accidents related to foam-filled furniture run into the hundreds.
We want to know the Government's intentions. I hope that I have demonstrated the seriousness of the problem; so why are we concerned about their intentions? The answer is simple: we do not necessarily believe in the Government's good intentions. They always say, as they did many times in Committee, "Trust us—leave it to us." They say that they will not reduce security and safeguards. I simply do not accept that. There are times when, rather than accepting the Government's words, we must look at their record; we should examine some of the rhetoric from Ministers about deregulation, the way in which the deregulation initiative has been presented to the House and the general argument that has been advanced. That argument has always been about taking the burden from industry.
Again, let me refer to the constituency of the hon. Member for Scarborough. There is a burden on one small business to observe the fire regulations and general health and safety provisions—a burden and a cost, which the evidence suggests may not have been met. That cost to one individual, however, also represents security, a safeguard and a benefit to others. That is the equation: the cost to one business is the right of another employee or consumer. Opposition Members are in the business of protecting the rights of such people.

Mr. John Sykes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about what happened in my constituency last week. Unfortunately, neither of us knows why those people died. It could well be that the person concerned smoked in bed, but—however hard we may try—we cannot introduce a law to stop people smoking in bed, although it may be enough to cause a fire. Until we know the exact reason for the fire, I do not think it right for the hon. Gentleman to use it as an excuse for his new clause.

Mr. Fatchett: At the time of the event, the hon. Gentleman simply argued that there was a need for tighter regulation and stronger licensing provisions. If ever there was an argument to support my views, it was his first and, I think, honourable reaction.
We need to strike a balance that takes account of other interests. Throughout the Committee stage, we feared that the Government's interests that come to the forefront will always relate to business; we feel that other costs and interests must be taken into account. We also believe that the provisions in clauses I to 4 will severely restrict our opportunity to debate these key issues properly. We have always said that we are not willing to give additional powers to the Executive, and we shall debate these issues again tomorrow and on Thursday.
The new clause is a second-best option. We should like all the Henry VIII powers removed because there is no justification for them but, if they are to remain, we believe that the specific issues of health and safety at work and fire safety and the general safety provisions should be removed from the first four clauses and from the general excessive

new powers to be given to Ministers. We believe that every Member of Parliament should feel that he or she has a voice and a part to play in this debate on behalf of his or her constituents. We believe that the existing procedures are unsatisfactory, and I therefore commend new clause 5 to my hon. Friends and to the House as a whole.

Mr. Andrew Miller: On Second Reading, I spoke of the need for clarity on the issue of health and safety as it is reflected in the Bill. In Committee, I pressed the Minister several times to clarify exactly how he saw the balance between the burden on business and necessary protection. In a written question on 15 March, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) asked the Secretary of State for Employment
which health and safety at work regulations he considers to be a burden on business.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment answered:
This is among the questions that I have put to the Health and Safety Commission and I am awaiting its advice."—[Official Report, 15 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 636.]
How to ensure the health and safety and welfare of our work force is one of the most important issues facing us today, but we are having to try to secure the necessary protection in the context of clauses on which the Government have yet to receive clear advice from the body set up to advise them. Perhaps that advice has been made clear since 15 March—it certainly had not been made clear while the Bill was in Committee—and, if so, I invite the Minister to tell us which regulations have been identified as a burden by the Health and Safety Commission.
If the list deals entirely with pre-1974 regulations, the Government are approaching this important issue in entirely the wrong way. The solution would be a relatively minor amendment to section 15 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which would give the commission the power to advise the Minister so that matters could be dealt with more smoothly and in a more structured way. I presented the same argument in broad terms in Committee, but we are working in a vacuum.
The whole debate is in a vacuum because the Government have repeatedly refused to clarify what was meant by "a burden on business". I hope that the Minister of State, Department of Employment, understands that other Ministers have in previous debates described what they regarded as burdens on business. One extremely good example was provided in a late night Adjournment debate to which the Under-Secretary of State for Schools replied. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) dealt with the safety of outdoor pursuit centres, and the Minister described his call for regulation of those centres as a burden on business. He did so in the context of the tragic death of four young people.
If the House is examining the Bill in a vacuum, and if the only information at our disposal comes from statements made late at night in which Ministers of the Crown give their definition of burdens on business in relation to health and safety matters, it is no wonder that there is a major difference in the approach of our two parties.
The whole health and safety debate has always centred on the difficult balance that exists. Any hon. Member who was involved in training in health and safety matters back in 1974–76 will remember the commission's early posters, which showed scales representing the balance between the cost of improving safety and the benefits to employees. It


is a difficult balance to strike and it must be dealt with subject by subject, regulation by regulation, and with great care. We cannot give sweeping powers to the Minister because the only information available is based on a set of vague generalisations given by his colleagues in relation to other matters. Until we debate specific regulations, we cannot make progress.
In a letter to members of the Committee, the Chemical Industries Association wrote:
The chemical industry believe that much of the framework of existing regulations specifically affecting the chemical industry, eg, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the COSHH Regulations, is fundamentally sound; in many cases, however, there is a need for greater clarity and consistency in interpretation.
This is especially relevant to my constituency, and the Minister of State will recall that last week I presented to him a petition on matters related to health and safety. The industry is pleading for better regulation and does riot want sweeping powers to be given to the Minister. The Bill approaches the issue in entirely the wrong way, and I urge the House to support new clause 5.

Mr. Adam Ingram: I support new clause 5 and wish to draw to the attention of the House and, I hope, that of the Minister an article that appeared in The Independent yesterday and that resulted in a leader column dealing with the implications of health and safety regulations. The article and the leader column dealt with the tragic case of a constituent of mine, Mr. William Neilson, who died on 9 June 1992, aged 61, of broncho-pneumonia, radiation-induced myeloid leukaemia, radiation dermatitis and radiation-induced myelodysphasia. 
Mr. Neilson worked as an industrial radiographer for a company called Metal and Pipeline Endurance Ltd.—MAPEL. His work involved using portable equipment with components that emitted radiation more powerful and penetrating than that of hospital X-rays. The medical inquiry held after his death revealed that he had received a cumulative dose of radiation of about 15 grays. Grays are the means by which radiation is measured. The dose of radiation that he received was 15,000 times that contained in a single chest X-ray.
6.30 pm
What is disturbing about Mr. Neilson's death is that no one is accepting any responsibility for it—not his employer, MAPEL, and not BP at Grangemouth, where he worked as a subcontracted employee of MAPEL. The Health and Safety Executive has also said that it will not take any action in relation to the case. I argue that the case must call into question the existing health and safety protection afforded to people such as Mr. Neilson who work as industrial radiographers.
About 8,000 people in the country today are undertaking vital work in the non-destructive testing of pipes and metal structures. According to the National Radiological Protection Board, they are the most exposed of all of those who work with radiation sources. In 1991 alone, 60 such workers received doses above the level requiring investigation and 10 received more than the maximum legal dose. We should compare that with the 40,000 people who work in the nuclear industry. None of them came near receiving the maximum dose of radiation, and only seven cases warranted investigation.
The fact that statistics are available shows that monitoring is taking place under the existing regulations.

Yet Mr. Neilson's condition was not identified early enough to save his life. No excess of radiation was ever recorded on the detection badge which he wore daily to his place of work.
Therefore, I am most surprised that the Health and Safety Executive should have dismissed responsibility for Mr. Neilson's death by saying that it would take no further action. I am also very surprised by the attitude of Mr. Neilson's employer, who said at the time of his death that Mr. Neilson was not working for the company. But at the time that Mr. Neilson received the dose of radiation which resulted in his death, he was working for MAPEL and BP, and he was supposedly under the monitoring control of the Health and Safety Executive and the relevant regulations, the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985. Someone was responsible for Mr. Neilson's death, yet no one is prepared to admit it. That is simply not acceptable.
The Bill will reduce the level of protection that is afforded to people such as the late Mr. Neilson and the other 8,000 industrial radiographers. If it goes ahead and the Government proceed with their intention, more deaths are likely to occur. I see that the Minister rejects that notion. If he rejects it, perhaps he should tell the House what action he has taken following the report in The Independent of yesterday. Has he asked the Health and Safety Executive to respond to that report? Is the executive now undertaking an urgent inquiry? Is it prepared to say that it has responsibility in this area and that it will investigate in detail what took place at the time?

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I have seen the report and I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. Yes, I have asked the Health and Safety Executive to report to me about the circumstances of that case, just as I have asked the Health and Safety Commission—which is a tripartite body—to look at the regulations. I have given clear instructions that no measures should be recommended that would undermine standards of health and safety. I think that it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to seek to make parallels, but, in view of his interest in the case, I assure him that I will keep him informed about the response we receive from the Health and Safety Executive.

Mr. Ingram: I am grateful that the Minister has responded in that way. It would have been useful if he had made some public statement about the matter today. Clearly, there are grave worries about the future regulations which will apply to health and safety generally, and specifically to this field. I appreciate that the Minister is to keep me informed; I hope that he will keep the House informed as well, because there is general concern about the future protection of such employees.
The question remains why the Health and Safety Executive dismissed that case in the way that it did. I suspect that it is because the organisation has been understaffed and its funds cut substantially. There have been major cuts in the grants allocated to safety representatives this year, and the Government intend to cut their support entirely.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that he is concerned about the matter. I am not surprised that he has responded in that way. When a major newspaper reports in detail and raises concerns of that sort, I would not expect anything less of the Government.
I ask the Government to accept the principle of new clause 5: aspects relating to health and safety should not be included in the Bill. That will satisfy those people who are working in very dangerous circumstances—many of them risking their lives for the good of the country by undertaking much-needed work in industrial radiography. That is the message that should come from the debate tonight. The only way that we can really satisfy those who work in that area—Mr. Neilson's widow, to whom I have spoken today, would agree—is by saying that further protection will be given to people who work in that field, thereby avoiding future deaths. We can satisfy their demands by supporting new clause 5.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I support new clause 5. We have been told that the Bill is about lifting unnecessary burdens, while retaining necessary protection. I do not think that it will do that, and I want to spend a couple of minutes looking at the implications for health and safety of what is proposed.
The Government's game plan seems to be to move responsibility for fire safety from the fire brigade, where it has rested since 1961, to local authority building control departments. Under the Bill, the functions of the building control departments could be contracted out to the private sector, so the responsibility for fire safety could end up outside the hands of a public authority.
The Government have treated the fire service in an absolutely shameful way. It has been sidelined and ignored. A construction industry task force looked at fire safety matters and released a report entitled "Deregulation Task Force". The document was deposited in the Library after the Committee had dealt with clause 27 of the Bill and, therefore, we could not refer to it in our considerations. However, I have since had the opportunity to look through it in detail, and it is perfectly clear that the individuals who put their names to the report know absolutely nothing about the fire service.
The task force was chaired by none other than Mr. Chris Spackman, the managing director of Bovis Construction. The task force is packed with people who have business interests in the construction industry and who are closely allied to Conservative interests. Astonishingly, the fire brigade was not invited to sit on the task force or to give evidence to the task force.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's memory is defective. We went through all these points in Committee and I answered all the questions. In particular, I made the point that that task force document has since been superseded by the on-going fire service review and one of the five participants in the review is the chief fire officer of the county of Durham. How can the hon. Gentleman claim credibly that the fire service is being ignored or that its concerns are not being taken properly into account?

Mr. Prentice: I do not accept that for one moment. The document which formed the Government's thinking was "Deregulation Task Force". No doubt its recommendations filtered through into the document which the Department prepared under the title "Cutting Red Tape".
I have a submission from the fire authority in my constituency in Lancashire which makes some very modest criticism of the process. It says:

It is disappointing to note that these proposals"—
the proposals which have emerged from the process—
have not been discussed with agencies responsible for the enforcement of current regulations and legislation until after they were submitted, thereby providing only one side of the argument and setting the agenda for other interested parties to follow.
It beggars belief that in that initiative, which was to involve the cutting of red tape and the lifting of burdens but also, in a sphere as vital as fire safety, the safeguarding of necessary protections, the fire brigade was not even consulted.
The construction industry task force, through Mr. Spackman of Bovis Construction and his acolytes, said:
Problems of consistency and quality of input are considerable. Whilst the Building Regulations are capable of standard interpretation through official guidance, the Fire Regulations are neither scientific nor consistently applied. Individual Fire Officers can have either substantial or little training and respond to most situations using common sense and custom and practice precedents.
What informed that conclusion? We were given no evidence in Committee to back that assertion.
We ask the House to support the new clause because our contention is that responsibility for the fire regulations should lie with fire authorities. It seems self-evident that the people who risk their lives to put out fires, the people who 24 hours a day live, breathe and think about the complex of issues involving fire and fire prevention, should not be sidelined in that way. The fire brigade, not only in Lancashire but all over the country, has the knowledge, the skill and the practical experience of how fires behave and how people react in a fire, yet that is to count for nothing.
In Committee we were treated to several vaudeville performances by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, who had a few funny stories up his sleeve, such as the one about the fire officer who wanted the sign on the fire door changed from red to green, and wanted the size altered half a dozen times, and so on. But the Lancashire fire authority tells me that, as we would expect from that Minister, such criticisms have been massively overstated.
I am told that there was a review of the Minister's Department in 1993—the Department of Trade and Industry's "Review of the Implementation and Enforcement of EC law in the UK". That review touched on such matters, and it confirmed what I am saying. The scale of the problem had been massively exaggerated.
If the fire authorities have been falling down in their duty, why has the problem never been brought before the House before? All fire authorities are inspected annually by the Home Office fire services inspectors, and every year the report goes to the Home Secretary, yet until now nothing has ever been brought before the House to alert us to the possibility that our fire authorities are falling down on the job.
The truth is that fire authorities are not falling down on the job. The whole exercise is ideologically driven—we shall return to that point on Thursday. It is driven by an absolute hatred of anything provided by public authorities, whether local authorities or fire authorities, and a determination to transfer to the private sector everything that is not nailed down.
I shall finish with a few statistics from my area. I have already mentioned the Minister's Laurel and Hardy act in Committee; yet if the fire authorities were making such a hash of things, why has Lancashire fire brigade, which carried out 40,000 inspections last year, received only two complaints since 1991? If the fire brigades are falling down


on the job of inspecting premises under the Fire Precautions Act 1971, which they rigorously enforce because they have the duty and responsibility to ensure that people are not incinerated in preventable fires, why have there been only three prosecutions in Lancashire since 1991?
The fire brigade is doing a pretty good job, and there is no evidence for the Government's contention that its responsibilities should be transferred to local authority building control departments. I hope that the House will support the new clause.

Mr. George Galloway: I shall add briefly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has said. I warn the Minister, who is jolly decent cove and a jolly intelligent one too, that, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has explained, he ought to know better than to oppose the new clause. I choose my words carefully, and do not mean to make a joke, when I say that the Minister is playing with fire with his proposal to take powers from the proper fire authorities and to pass to less qualified hands the duty of inspecting premises to ensure that their fire precautions are appropriate.
The Minister should bear in mind the fact that fire authorities and the fire service are among the most popular groups of public officials in the country. Their people are literally heroes, and everyone knows that they have saved lives both by their urgent and efficacious interventions in fires and by preventing tragedy through the assiduousness of their preventive work on fire precautions.
A few weeks ago in my constituency, encouraged by the splendid Fire Brigades Union—one of the oldest and best trade unions in the country—we did some street work with postcards and petitions, explaining to passers-by the Government's plans to take powers away from the fire authorities and fire services. That took place in an area that was once a Conservative constituency, yet I do not exaggerate when I say that the people there were surprised. It is difficult to shock people after 15 years' experience of the Thatcher-Major Government, yet people were not only shocked but horrified by the proposal.
In this building I recently had a conversation with the leaders of the Fire Brigades Union in Scotland. One of the most telling points that they made—I should like to hear the Minister's answer to it—was that, if the fire authorities are deprived of the responsibility of making regular inspections of buildings, some of which are tinderboxes, with fires waiting to happen, the first time that fire service people will be inside some of those premises is when they have to batter down the doors with their hoses in order to attack a potentially devastating fire.
One of the experiences that the authority gains from its current responsibilities is that its regular visits to premises as part of the licensing process give it an intimate knowledge of the layout and interior of those premises, of the parts of the building likely to cause difficulties in a fire and of the approach that could theoretically be taken if a fire occurred. If we take that responsibility away from the fire authorities and the fire service, by definition they will be deprived of that important and potentially life-saving experience.
The Conservative party is supposed to be party with the slogan, "If it's not broken, why fix it?" but of course, nowadays there is now a new breed of Conservative—

people who are not so attached to that essentially Conservative principle. I cannot for the life of me understand what the Government are doing, and that applies to all their present proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) made clear, there is no evidence among public opinion anywhere that the current system is in any way broken or deficient. In all the years that I have been in the House since 1987, we have never once been told of any significant failings in the current system.
The truth is that the change is not being made as a result either of the need to implement better practice or of any complaint arising from public opinion. The essence, the secret, of the change—we shall hear it over and over again in the next three days—lies in the vested interests that were stuffed into the task forces. Of course, the Minister will say that there was another tier to the task forces and that a fire officer from Durham was eventually put on them, but I have never heard him explain why the fire authorities were not represented in the first place on the task forces that drew up the blue document—produced this evening—which informed their thinking and that of the review tier of the body that looked into the matter.
The task forces, which have been the driving force behind the proposal before us, are stuffed full of vested interests, many of which make substantial financial donations to the Conservative party. They are more concerned with the price of the service than its value, knowing as they do the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Of course, most Conservative Members, however sheepishly, will troop behind the Minister, but I warn them in my closing remarks, as I did at the beginning of my speech, that the Government are playing with fire. The first time that a devastating fire destroys property and kills human beings as a result of the change—believe me, one does not need a crystal ball to envisage that it will not be many years before such a tragedy occurs—the responsibility will be laid fairly and squarely with the Minister, whom I admire and whom I caution, even at this eleventh hour, to change course. That responsibility will lie with the Minister, with the Government and with the Conservative party.

Mr. Richard Burden: When the deregulation initiative was first mooted and when the Bill was first talked about, one subject that aroused more public suspicion than any other was the likely threat to health and safety. Ministers sought to dampen those worries and those suspicions all the way through, but they remain. As my hon. Friends have already said, those worries and suspicions remain on the definition of what is a burden on business. What are those health and safety regulations and standards that Conservative Members and, they believe, businesses find so difficult to bear?
The nearest thing that I have found to a Government definition of a burden on business is when they described what bad regulations are in their booklet on deregulation "Cutting Red Tape". One of the things that the document says is that bad regulations "waste time and money". What is a waste of time and money? It rather depends on who is defining the issue. In a cut-throat market and in those industries where the deregulation initiative has already had its effect, practices apparently waste time and money if they cut profit margins, because that can often mean the difference between staying in business and going out of


business. That is when cost-cutting occurs. When cost-cutting occurs, that is when corner-cutting occurs, and when corner-cutting occurs, that is when health and safety standards start to suffer.
That is not scaremongering. It is happening already. Let us look, for instance, at the coach industry, which has already been subject to deregulation. Only last week, we read in the papers about the coach crash in Kent in November. It was believed to have happened—arguments have been put forward—because the advanced braking system on the coach was not working. The Department of Transport has—it seems—issued three sets of orders relating to ABS braking, which could have prevented coaches being on the roads until problems had been rectified. Either those orders were not enforced properly or they were not capable of being enforced properly, but the result was that that accident happened and 10 people died, including the coach driver.
So far, nobody has been held responsible for that accident. Even the coroner said that there was no candidate in the company whose negligence could be proved to have caused those deaths, even though another driver had pointed out the problems on that coach's braking system some 13 months previously. Indeed, we were told that the driver involved was not aware of that problem.
Faced with the classic example of that coach crash in Kent, are we honestly saying that the problem is too much regulation? Or is the problem, as I believe, not enough effective regulation and not enough effective enforcement? That is important to me as I come from the west midlands, where, only a couple of months ago—indeed, on the very day that, in Committee, we were discussing what is now clause 28, which relates to health and safety—a report was published by the west midlands health and safety advice centre called "The Perfect Crime".
That report detailed a study undertaken into workplace deaths in the west midlands area—some 28 work-related deaths—between 1988 and 1992. Its conclusion, backed by Sir Anthony Scrivener, Queen's counsel, was that, of those 28 cases, at least four could have resulted in a manslaughter prosecution and seven should have been referred to the police for criminal investigation and passed to the Crown Prosecution Service. Eight of the cases were inadequately investigated by the enforcement agencies and required further investigation, and five could have involved prosecution under health and safety law.
The families involved in those four cases in which, perhaps, a manslaughter prosecution should have been brought—the families of Dennis Wall, Dennis Clarke, Reginald Price and Tara Singh—expect their Government to recognise the incalculable burden that they have suffered in losing their loved ones. Not surprisingly, they are perhaps less than patient with a Government who see burdens only when they are burdens on business. If that is the only language in which the Government are prepared to talk and the only currency that they are prepared to understand, perhaps they should do their own calculations on the £16 billion cost of workplace-related accidents and on the £6 billion that accidents at work cost businesses.
If the new clause is not added, the Bill will contain no provision that says that health and safety standards are a no-go area when it comes to the deregulation initiative. We have been assured by Ministers on Second Reading and in

Committee—no doubt, we shall be so assured again today —that their intention is not to remove what they describe as necessary protection. However, time and again in Committee during debates on health and safety and, indeed, during debates on other aspects of the Bill, we have asked what they mean by "necessary protection". What is the bottom line? Which standards do they think are not appropriate for deregulation? We have never on any occasion heard a clear answer from Ministers.
If ever there were a reason for the new clause to be added, it is not what I have said or what my hon. Friends have said, but the words of the Minister. At the first meeting of the Committee on 15 February 1994, I asked the Minister a direct question. Many Conservative Members have referred to the Health and Safety Commission today and its role in the deregulation initiative and in the task forces. I asked the Minister whether he could assure us that no health and safety regulations would be removed if that removal did not have the support of the trade unions and of the Health and Safety Commission.
The Minister said:
I am not saying that that would occur only when trade unions were involved, but we would obviously follow the recommendations of the Health and Safety Commission.
A few moments later, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked the Minister a slight variation of that question. He asked:
Will the Minister now give a commitment that the powers in clause 1 will not be used on any occasion on which the Health and Safety Commission objects?
The Minister gave the following reply:
I regard it as going against the tripartite nature of the Health and Safety Commission for the hon. Gentleman to single out trade unions for special privilege. I hope that he will withdraw that remark, in view of the nature of the commission.
On the Health and Safety Commission, I said—I think that I am quoting myself correctly—that I regard it as most improbable or most unlikely… I would not like to go further than that"— [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 February 1994; c. 27–28.]
The Opposition's message is that we expect Ministers
—I believe that the public do as well—to go further than that. Health and safety standards must not be the casualty of the deregulation initiative. The families of all those who are injured at work—the families of the nine people who lose their lives every week at work—expect better from their Government, and their Government can give them better by accepting the new clause.

7 pm

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Over the past hour, my hon. Friends have shown how strong our feelings are about the Bill, especially in terms of its possible effect on health and safety. Those of us who were members of the Committee are aware that we are a highly privileged bunch of hon. Members because we have at least discussed deregulation measures in detail. The purpose of the Bill is to remove that privilege from Members of Parliament, so that regulations will not have that proper scrutiny.
As we discussed the specific items on the face of the Bill in Committee, we kept coming back to the inadequate definitions which are so worrying, and we shall come back to them on Thursday. What is a burden on business? At what point do the costs to an industry become so great that it is important that the burden is lifted? At what point does "necessary protection"—no adequate definition has been given to us—come into effect? At every end and turn, the


Government, through the Bill, have sought to offer to business the guarantee that if it shouts loud enough that regulations are too great a cost to it, they will act in the interests of business rather than in the interests of the public. I thought that the Government were supposed to act in the interests of the public.
That point is felt most sharply in health and safety. In health and safety terms, what is a burden for business may be a man or woman's life at work. A human life does not and cannot have a price. The fire officers and the members of the Fire Brigades Union to whom we have talked during the passage of the Bill have reminded us, time and again, that every fire regulation and every health and safety at work regulation has come out of a tragedy.
Whenever there is a tragedy or a death, the people around say, "This must not happen again. How can we ensure that it does not happen again?" A regulation is then introduced for a particular industry or a particular budding. To remove those regulations because they are a cost to business will clearly put lives at risk.
I hope that the Government will consider the following point. I am almost certain that in a few minutes, we shall be told that we have been scaremongering, as we were told several times in Committee. The Government could consider tonight the point that, even within the context of the Bill, by accepting that health and safety regulations and fire regulations should fall outside the group of regulations which the Bill can be used to deregulate, they would withdraw the accusation of scaremongering and would lift the threat to the lives and limbs of people at work.
The Government should simply accept the new clause and take out of the Bill anything to do with health and safety, life and limb and the threat to lives. The Government could take that simple action tonight. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government believe that public opinion is such that they will bow not just to the Opposition, but to public opinion. I hope that, because the public believe that health and safety is so important, the Government will accept the new clause.

Mr. Michael Clapham: We must be clear that the Bill is, in part, about restricting the right of workers, under health and safety legislation, to a say in their working environment. That is why the new clause is important. It would maintain a high standard of health and safety in manufacturing industry by ensuring that no order that threatened the health and safety of any person could be made. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is prepared to accept the new clause. If the new clause is not included in the Bill, the Government will be free to bring back 19th-century working conditions. That is what the Bill is all about. It will create working conditions that will attract the worst employers.
The real burden of health and safety falls on those who suffer from accidents or ill health caused by their work, as my hon. Friends have said strongly this evening. According to figures recently published by the GMB, the cost to employers of work accidents and ill health is between £4 billion and £9 billion. The cost to society is reckoned to be between £10 billion and £15 billion. Clearly, employers, employees and society cannot afford that continuing cost. The Government should endeavour to ensure that the record becomes better and they should not create a situation which is likely to make things worse. That is why we must support the new clause. If it is not accepted, we can expect the record to worsen.
The real problem in health and safety is not that legislation is too restrictive, but that many employers fail to comply with the existing laws. The Health and Safety Executive has drawn attention, time and again, to non-compliance in sectors such as construction, textiles, chemicals and, I am afraid to say, local authorities.
The Government claim that they are easing the burden on business, but that is a ruse, as the Minister knows. In circumstances where it suits the Government, they have imposed unnecessary burdens on business. The administration of statutory sick pay is just one of the burdens that the Government have imposed on business. At first glance, the Bill may not appear to be that unreasonable in the area of health and safety. Clearly, laws need to be relevant and understandable. However, when the veneer is scratched away, we see clearly that there is more than meets the eye to the Bill.
The deregulation of health and safety must be seen in the context of the Government's hostility to the European Commission's social action programme. The Government are opposed to the health and safety legislation that is required by the "six pack" of European directives. That is the real intention of deregulating health and safety—it has nothing to do with abolishing obsolete legislation.
If the Government want to do something positive about health and safety, they should implement a new consultative machinery between the Health and Safety Executive and employers. They should increase the number of field inspectors and ensure that more resources are available for the training of shop floor health and safety inspectors. I hope that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches realise that if the new clause is not accepted—I am sorry, I meant to say Government Benches.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: They will be soon.

Mr. Clapham: It is true that Tory Members will be on the Opposition Benches soon. If the new clause is not accepted by the Government, the situation in industry will worsen, to the detriment of employers, employees and the community generally.

Ms Glenda Jackson: As my hon. Friends have said, it is the Government's inability to define what is meant by "burden" and "necessary protection" which causes us the most disquiet and which we are justified in being concerned about, because what we are discussing here are protections that will put at risk human health and, in extreme circumstances, take away human life.
The burden with which the Government are most concerned to lift from employers—be it in business, industry or the service sector—is that of responsibility. It is that responsibility, which carries with it a moral element —it certainly should in the field that we are discussing —that the Government wish to remove as a protective element for the British work force. We should not be surprised by that, because the Government have advertised the British work force in Germany not on the level of their skills or ability but on the fact that they will work for less than any other European workers.
The Government have also boasted that they have kept this country out of the EC health and safety directives. This country is becoming one of the most dangerous places in Europe in which to work.
It seems that the Government's proposals on the face of the Bill, which will preclude any future Parliament from examining such proposals in any detail, are something


which the whole House should take seriously, and to which it should give serious consideration. That is why I trust that the House will vote in support of our new clause.
We are at a time in the development of industry and business when workers are constantly being expected to use new materials and new procedures. We are in an area where dangers come from we do not know what. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) pointed out, our existing health and safety legislation procedures usually came after some major and tragic accident. If the new clause is not accepted by the House tonight, we are at risk of increasing the possibility of such tragedies in a way that we have not seen before. Some of the processes and procedures which workers are now having to use are still very much an unknown area.
One can only look at the life that we as individuals know. It used to be that when we needed to go to the dentist and we needed an X-ray, the dentist and his assistant would stay in the room. We now know that that is a dangerous procedure—the dentist and his assistant now stand behind the protective screen or leave the room. If we look at the use of hypodermic needles in medicine, it used to be that they would be tossed with a cavalier disregard into any sort of receptacle. Since the discovery of how HIV and AIDS are transmitted, hypodermic needles and other such implements must go in protective boxes, cartons or bags.
We are constantly developing new procedures, processes and materials in a modern industrial society, but our knowledge of the possible dangers from those processes and procedures is not keeping pace with that forward thrust. That is why it is an extremely dangerous proposal on behalf of the Government simply to savage and sabotage those protections such as they have allowed to remain for the work force in this country. It is also the reason why I hope that the House will vote for the new clause tonight.

Mr. John Heppell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Hon. Members will remember that I was unhappy at Second Reading not because of what was on the face of the Bill—things such as the market charters and other important things. This issue does not affect people's lives—it decides whether they live or not. It is probably the most important issue that we will discuss tonight.
When the Minister talks about burdens, he must recognise that there is not only a burden on people in terms of personal suffering as a result of accidents at work; there is also a burden on the state. It has been estimated that the cost to the country of accidents at work is between £10 billion and £15 billion, and that 70 per cent. of all accidents could have been avoided. At present, it seems that we should not be relaxing regulations—we should be ensuring that they are properly enforced.
7.15 pm
The Government's response is to make cuts in the Health and Safety Commission. They have cut spending by 5 per cent., and 120 jobs in the commission have been lost this year. However, we need to look beyond what the Health and Safety Commission and the health and safety legislation do, because people's health and safety are determined by other legislation. As hon. Members said, most legislation usually comes about as a result of some

sort of disaster. It is usually the stable door approach. Some people would describe it as the tombstone approach—as the tombstones mount up, the pressure for legislation mounts up. We have seen that time and time again.
We have certainly seen that with regard to fire regulations. Before 1970, all fire regulations came about because of a major disaster. Since then, to our shame, every piece of legislation has come about because of a major disaster. What we have now are a Government who are prepared in one breath to say that they will ensure that proper safety is there, and at the same time in the background they are prepared to erode people's safety. I can give many examples of that.
I can understand why the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) was happy to dismiss everything about Scarborough and say that they have not quite made up their mind about the problem. When we discussed the building and fire regulations in Committee, we were told that we were scaremongering and terrifying people when there was no need for it. I am happy to be a scaremonger if it makes the Government think twice about the legislation that they want to change. I was happy to be a scaremonger with regard to the regulations on furniture fittings. The Government were examining those regulations—they wanted to repeal the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988. The regulations were amended in 1989, but they were still not properly in force in 1993.
The Government wanted to amend the Gas Cooking Appliances (Safety) Regulations 1989 with regard to second-hand cookers. People recognised the danger of that. The Government wanted to look at the Heating Appliances (Fire Guards) (Safety) Regulations 1991 and the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985, which were introduced after a blaze of publicity—I am sorry; I did not intend to make that pun. We all saw the pictures on television of children whose nightgowns had caught fire. The Government wanted to examine the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1989, although only a couple of years ago a child was killed after throwing a dangerous toy on to a fire.
The Government wanted to look at all those things. That is why I cannot trust the Government and they should not be given a blank cheque in terms of fire safety. In Committee, we were told that the things that the Government were doing were all innocuous. They said that local building Acts were of no consequence and that they were getting rid of outdated Acts.
Within a fortnight of the Committee voting on that, "World In Action" showed what building regulations meant. It showed a good example in one of the companies which was advising the Government on deregulation—Sainsbury. The programme showed a Sainsbury store and the local building regulations said that the store should have sprinklers and divisions in the roof space to stop the spread of fire. Those were ignored, and there was an appeal to the Secretary of State about the regulations. The appeal was upheld and the sprinklers and the divisions in the roof space were not put in.
The building burned down, not because of any fire inside, but because a wheelie bin caught fire outside. The fire spread to the roof and across the building, which burned down. Luckily, no one's life was lost, but that could have happened so easily. If the fire had occurred during the day, and not in the evening, the fire brigade was quite certain that it would not have been able to evacuate people from the store. That is one example of the Government saying one thing but doing another.


I shall turn quickly to security at airports. I was quite happy to be a scaremonger after I found out that Government and the task force said that security at airports was belt and braces and that there was too much security at airports. Within days of that decision in Committee, somebody mortar-bombed Heathrow airport. I hope that the Government's view on that has changed now.
When we discussed the changes to public service vehicle and heavy goods vehicle licensing, there was talk about changing the rules governing drivers' hours which would allow them to drive for longer. It is only in the past few days that we have seen, following the M2 coach crash, that the driver had exceeded his hours and the speedometer had not been properly checked. The regulations which were there already should have been enforced more rigorously. We do not need less regulation, but more.
We get knee-jerk reactions. Following the fire in Scarborough, we are told that there will be a licensing system. That suggestion was rubbished when we were in Committee. Following the M2 disaster, we were told that there would be moves to stop coaches going into the fast lane. Again, any talk from the Opposition about the safety of HGVs and PSVs was rubbished in Committee. When we talked about the security of airports before the mortar-bombing of Heathrow, it was rubbished in Committee.
It is the Government's hypocrisy that gets me. They say they will promise people safety when they know that people with vested interests have sat on the task forces. For example, the task force on construction was chaired by Chris Spackman, the managing director of Bovis Construction, and included Derek Bernard Rimmer of Slough Estates and Dr. Margaret Lowe of Ove Arup. They all have vested interests and they will ensure that none of the measures are properly applied.
I shall finish by mentioning an interdepartmental fire safety scrutiny observation by the National Association of Fire Officers. In some ways, it sums up what the Government are doing. On the front page of the document, it says that a bonfire of red tape may prove an unfortunate phrase when human life is at stake.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Blessed are those who expect nothing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for they shall not be disappointed.
I never really expected any sensible and informed speeches from Opposition Members, and my expectations have been amply fulfilled in the past hour or so. It is a great misfortune that we cannot debate serious issues in a rational and proportionate way. The Opposition do themselves no favours with the kind of speeches that we have heard this afternoon, not least from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). She is never inhibited by any connection with the facts, and declared that this country was the most dangerous place in Europe. On the contrary, the latest Health and Safety Commission annual report shows that expected—

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hamilton: I will in a moment, but first I will give the hon. Lady some statistics. She lacked any statistics in her speech and a combination of my speech and hers may advance the debate. The HSC annual report shows that expected overall fatal injury rates have dropped to the

lowest levels ever reported and now stand at 1.3 per 100,000 employees. Non-fatal injury rates for employees also fell slightly last year for the third successive year.
The fatal injury rate is now less than one quarter of the rate in the early 1960s, less than one half of that in the 1970s, and 20 per cent. lower than that of the mid-1980s.

Mr. Fatchett: The rate of accidents is important.

Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman points out, that is the key factor. The rate of accidents per 100,000 employees has fallen also, I am delighted to confirm to him.

Ms Glenda Jackson: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I am delighted that the hon. Lady is about to contradict the facts.

Ms Jackson: Not at all. Yet again, the Minister is referring to figures which have been achieved in the past. Our argument is that, if the Bill goes through, such figures will be an impossibility in the future.
I believe that I did not say that this was the most dangerous place to work in Europe. I believe that I did say that, if the Government have their way, Britain will certainly become the most dangerous place in Europe in which to work.

Mr. Hamilton: I am afraid that the hon. Lady will discover when she has been here a little longer that, in this place, we are judged by what we have said, rather than by what we think we have said. That is sometimes very inconvenient.
The assorted members of the national union of shroud-wavers, scaremongers and conspiracy theorists sitting on the Opposition benches will be rejected by the people of this country. Everybody who thinks about it for a moment recognises that, if we have regulations which impose unnecessary costs upon businesses, those costs will flow through. Ultimately, they must be paid for by the very people whom Opposition Members claim they want to protect and defend, and whose interests they seek to advance.
Nobody with any sense takes the absolutist position that, on all matters concerning safety, we must do as much as we can without any consideration of costs to stamp out certain risks. They are all cases of balance. After all, if we were to take the view that we wanted to stamp out all road accidents, a simple way of doing so would be to ban all vehicles from using the roads. There would then be no accidents on the roads. But no sensible person takes that view. We all ultimately—consciously or subconsciously —make judgments about risks and we must bear in mind the costs that we are imposing upon society by the regulations that we introduce.
Among the many fantasies produced by Opposition Members is that we are in some way going to abolish all fire regulations, or that we are to reduce them in way that will increase substantially the risks to the public. The Government have no intention of doing that, and of course it would be a stupid thing to aim to do. I must admit that even this Government are not infallible, and we have from time to time made mistakes. However, I have stated categorically that our aim in the reviews that we have set up is to identify areas of overlap and duplication and where there is a lack of clarity between the responsibilities of enforcement bodies.
We want recommendations on the ways of dealing with those areas and we wish to address the practicability of bringing all the policy responsibilities for fire safety together in a single department to improve the clarity of the regulations and the effectiveness of their enforcement.

Mr. Galloway: Why were not the fire authorities and the fire service represented on the task force?

Mr. Hamilton: The task force was appointed to give the business view to the Government. [Interruption.] Of course that was the intention. It is extraordinary that Opposition Members think that business—the employers of the people whom they claim to represent—should not have their view heard by the Government. Opposition Front-Bench Members who slink around the dining rooms of the City and industry attempting to make friends among industrialists might have some difficult questions to answer if that were not the case.
Any sensible person knows that we must take into account the interests of industry, employees, professionals and the fire service. The views of business do not in any way require the Government to accept the recommendations, nor have we said that that would be the case. Having received that view, we have now instituted a wide review and an efficiency scrutiny of the areas of overlap and duplication. There are five members on the review team, as I mentioned earlier. I shall give everyone the names so that in future Opposition Members might not have the opportunity to scaremonger so much.
Mr. Stewart Kidd is the director of the Fire Protection Association, a subsidiary of the Loss Prevention Council. It certainly has no vested interest in increasing losses from fires. It has every vested interest in ensuring that there is greater safety to reduce its losses. Mr. David Smith is the president of the Institute of Building Control. It does not sound to me as if he is likely to be a fire-breathing extremist of the kind that Opposition Members have fantasised about.
Mr. Bill Yates works for Shell, a company that operates in the area of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would accuse that company of having the opinions of which his hon. Friends have spoken this evening. Mr. Alf Thompson is the chief officer of Durham fire service. Mr. Richard Saxon is a partner in the Building Design Partnership and, horror of horrors, a member of the construction deregulation task force.

Mr. Heppell: The Minister read out a list of names. I am fairly certain that that list was not on the original task force. Is the Minister talking about the one that was set up after complaints were made or the original one?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has woken up, I am glad to hear. I have already said that the deregulation task force was put together to give us the business view. The Government were not obliged to accept its view. The Government have not yet taken any decisions on any of the issues that it raised, but we have set up the second review, which is designed to give us a balanced view of the issues that I have set out.
So I am afraid that Opposition Members have been wasting their time and the time of the House in the past

hour. They have been firing their muskets up alleyways down which the enemy is not coming, as someone once said of a speech made by Winston Churchill in the House.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the Minister give the House a categorical undertaking that the responsibility for fire safety will not be transferred from the fire authorities?

Mr. Hamilton: I do not know whether it is the hon. Gentleman's view that reviews should be prejudged or that the Government should take decisions in advance of appointing them. That was an absurd and preposterous question to ask. We are happy to be judged on safety by our experience of 15 years in office.
Since 1975 the Health and Safety Commission has repealed or modified some 350 pieces of old, outdated and detailed prescriptive legislation. They have been replaced with about 100 sets of modern regulations which focus on the goals to be achieved by employers. That is more flexible and practicable for all involved. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, we need the Bill because the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 forbids us to repeal outdated and obsolete legislation by any means that are likely to be practicable. Consequently, it prevents us from doing in relation to pre-1974 legislation what we can already do in respect of post-1974 legislation.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hamilton: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he was not here for the debate and I see that many Members have come into the Chamber. They have probably come to hear my speech rather than Opposition Members' interventions. I think that it is more likely that they have come in expecting a vote to take place, and I know that I have already been speaking for too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] On that note of unity, perhaps I should sit down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] By popular request. In that case, I can take a hint and I will sit down.

Mr. Fatchett: If ever there was an argument for new clause 5, it was the Minister's speech. It was an appalling speech and one that the Minister will come to regret. We were dealing with serious issues and the Minister was not prepared to take them seriously. My hon. Friends were not scaremongering. They were raising serious issues and factual cases. The Minister could not even bother to reply to the points that they made.
The most telling comment that the Minister made was his definition of a burden as a cost to business. He needs to understand that there is a balance that relates to employees, consumers and the general public. In the Scarborough fire case, there was a burden on a small business to bring the hotel up to acceptable and legitimate standards. The fact is that lives were lost and people were injured because that did not happen. That is the basis of the balance to which my hon. Friends have referred. It is a great shame that the Minister could not respond to those important points.
It is also a great shame that the Minister did not recognise the fears that the task force working parties were set up to reflect interests, and in particular interests, that have backed the Conservative party and will get what they want from the Government's deregulation initiatives.
New clause 5 deals with important issues and the Government are sending one clear signal. Last Thursday at Question Time, the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to take tougher action following the Scarborough fire. The fact is that the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs and the Minister of State, Department of Employment are driven by an ideology that favours deregulated labour markets and a free-for-all for entrepreneurs without any protection for consumers and employees. We reject that outdated ideology. That is why I ask my hon. Friends not to give more power to Ministers but to protect the House and those outside by supporting new clause 5.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 283.

Division No. 234]
[7.35 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Ainger, Nick
Dafis, Cynog


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Allen, Graham
Darling, Alistair


Alton, David
Davidson, Ian


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Austin-Walker, John
Dewar, Donald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Harry
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Donohoe, Brian H.


Battle, John
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Ms Angela


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Eastham, Ken


Beggs, Roy
Enright, Derek


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Etherington, Bill


Bell, Stuart
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fisher, Mark


Benton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Berry, Roger
Foulkes, George


Betts, Clive
Fraser, John


Blair, Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Blunkett, David
Galbraith, Sam


Boyes, Roland
Galloway, George


Bradley, Keith
Gapes, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
George, Bruce


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Byers, Stephen
Godsiff, Roger


Callaghan, Jim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gunnell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hain, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hall, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Doug


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Coffey, Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Cummings, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)





Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ingram, Adam
Parry, Robert


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Patchett, Terry


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pendry, Tom


Janner, Greville
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prescott, John


Jowell, Tessa
Primarolo, Dawn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Randall, Stuart


Khabra, Piara S.
Raynsford, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Redmond, Martin


Lewis, Terry
Reid, Dr John


Litherland, Robert
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Livingstone, Ken
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rogers, Allan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rooker, Jeff


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Ian
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Macdonald, Calum
Rowlands, Ted


McFall, John
Ruddock, Joan


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Sheerman, Barry


Maclennan, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McMaster, Gordon
Simpson, Alan


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mahon, Alice
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Mandelson, Peter
Snape, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maxton, John
Stevenson, George


Meacher, Michael
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tyler, Paul


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Milburn, Alan
Wallace, James


Miller, Andrew
Walley, Joan


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wareing, Robert N


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wicks, Malcolm


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wise, Audrey


Mudie, George
Worthington, Tony


Mullin, Chris
Wright, Dr Tony


Murphy, Paul
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Olner, William
Mr. Dennis Turner.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Batiste, Spencer


Ashby, David
Bellingham, Henry


Aspinwall, Jack
Bendall, Vivian


Atkins, Robert
Beresford, Sir Paul






Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gillan, Cheryl


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Booth, Hartley
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hannam, Sir John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Nick


Butler, Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Hendry, Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cash, William
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Congdon, David
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dicks, Terry
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knox, Sir David


Dunn, Bob
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Eggar, Tim
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Elletson, Harold
Legg, Barry


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Faber, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fabricant, Michael
Lord, Michael


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Luff, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fishburn, Dudley
MacKay, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Maclean, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madel, Sir David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marlow, Tony


Fry, Sir Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gallie, Phil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Garnier, Edward
Merchant, Piers





Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Sir Roger
Stephen, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stern, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Streeter, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Needham, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Nelson, Anthony
Sykes, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thomason, Roy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thumham, Peter


Paice, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tredinnick, David


Pickles, Eric
Trend, Michael


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Trotter, Neville


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Richards, Rod
Walden, George


Riddick, Graham
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robathan, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waterson, Nigel


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Watts, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wells, Bowen


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whitney, Ray


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Whittingdale, John


Sackville, Tom
Widdecombe, Ann


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Spencer, Sir Derek
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Spink, Dr Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

HANDLING OF REDUNDANCIES

'No order shall be made under section 1 of this Act which includes any provision amending or repealing any provision of Chapter II of Part IV of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Procedure for handling redundancies) and "enactment" for the purposes of Chapter 1 of this Act shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Nigel Griffiths.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 7, in page 23, clause 27, leave out lines 14 to 21.
No. 15, in page 109, schedule 14, leave out lines 13 to 17.
No. 17, in page 2, line 43, clause 1, after (6)', insert'and section(Handling of redundancies) below'.

Mr. Griffiths: I am pleased to recommend the new clause and the amendments for a number of reasons, not least because in the past 15 years workers have been left with precious few employment rights. The new clause and the amendments will ensure that what little protection they have is consolidated and extended.
The new clause would prevent the Government: from amending or repealing any of the provisions in chapter II of part IV of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 through a deregulation order under the Bill.
Present legislation requires employers to consult recognised trade unions if they are contemplating large-scale redundancies. If 100 or more employees are to be dismissed in 90 days or less, consultations must take place at least 90 days in advance. If between 10 and 99 employees are to be dismissed in 30 days or less, under the present law, consultations must take place at least 30 days in advance. Failure to comply with the legislation can result in large protective awards. Employers are also required to notify the Secretary of State for Employment within equivalent periods if they are proposing to make 10 or more employees redundant.
Chapter II of the 1992 Act provides some moderate protection to employees. There are four modest reasons for moving the new clause to ensure that that protection continues. Under the present legislation, the employer has to inform the union of the reasons for the redundancies, the numbers and descriptions of the employees involved, the proposed selection criteria and method of carrying out dismissals, with due regard to any agreed procedures, and the period within which they will take place.
We want to ensure that those four provisions contained in present law are enshrined beyond the implementation of the Bill. They are essential to prevent a return to the Victorian days that we have heard about from the Conservatives. Gone are the days when employees had to touch their caps to employers or grovel for work and take whatever was handed out—or so we thought until we saw the Bill. This excellent new clause will ensure that employees at least have the right in law to be consulted and informed when redundancies are to take place.
We know what would happen if such protection were not enshrined in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. In April, about 1,400 Swan Hunter workers lost their jobs and their colleagues took the shipyard's managers to court for failing to go through agreed procedures. They won substantial compensation settlements—many hundreds of thousands of pounds. Other large firms have gone into receivership—it has been common under this Government —for example, Ferranti and Leyland DAF, whose employees were dismissed at short notice and seemingly arbitrarily, in contravention of their legal rights. That comes as little surprise from the Conservative party, which as we know has gone soft on law and order.
Workers are entitled to that protection and we are determined to ensure that it continues through this clause. That is why we want to write the clause on the face of the Bill so that no zealot Tory Minister can try to come through the back door of the House of Commons to remove such protection, under the guise of deregulation. It is very important for the new clause to be carried.
The amendments touch on clause 27, which does two things. It removes workers' protection against unfair redundancy and allows selection for dismissal without any regard to customary procedures or even to procedures

agreed with workers and their trade unions. The Government have again fallen foul of the law. They have failed to adhere to laws which came from Europe and which they accepted.
This year they have already been carpeted by an advisory ruling on 2 March in infraction proceedings that the European Commission brought against the United Kingdom for failing fully to implement laws safeguarding the rights of employees. If those laws do not touch on redundancy, they certainly touch on the rights of workers' representatives to be involved in consultations when a business changes hands and they entitle workers and their representatives to be consulted about collective redundancies. The Government never learn where the law is concerned.
In those cases, the law did not relate to businesses but to worker protection. It is important to remove clause 27 from the Bill so that we can ensure that workers remain fully protected under section 59 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The Government have clearly overlooked important cases. During the past week, there was a case in which people were selected for redundancy for the most pernicious of reasons—age. Thirty workers over the age of 59 were weeded out and selected for redundancy, in contravention of any common decency and despite the value that we place on experience, if not in actual contravention of the law. In that case, the industrial tribunal found in favour of the workers.
It is very sad that we do not have a law to protect workers and other people against age discrimination, as other countries do, but we saw what happened in the House last Friday. A law to protect disabled people was sabotaged by a Minister who first denied it and was then forced at last to tell part of the truth, although the whole truth has yet to come out. Given that they pick on the disabled, it would hardly be surprising if they stooped to picking on elderly people as well.
The amendments and the new clause will ensure that protection for employees is not only enhanced in the Bill, but extended to those who serve under the Crown. It is vitally important that the rights for which workers have fought during many decades, indeed centuries, are not arbitrarily scrapped by the Government in a Bill which contains many other measures—as has been demonstrated here and in Committee—which do so much harm to the rights of consumers, workers and others. We shall certainly press the new clause and the amendments to a vote.

8 pm

Mr. Miller: During the early 1980s, when I had industrial responsibility for parts of south Liverpool, I found myself dealing on a daily basis with the pain of people being made redundant. The official notifications —form HR 1 from the Department of Employment—came in so thick and fast from employers that I could have papered my office walls with those terrible notices. It was a period of great industrial change in the area, with the loss of major employers.
Nobody can doubt the pain that is associated with redundancy. Dr. Beal from Wiltshire carried out some important research, following the work by Harvey Brenner in the United States, illustrating beyond any doubt the connection between ill health and unemployment, based on


the closure of one factory. The pain associated with unemployment and redundancy must be considered in the context of these important amendments.
The legislation that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has described so well is effective, but it is weak, even now. If we allow the Government's position to prevail, we shall further weaken the legislation and take away from people who have customary arrangements within their workplaces the one small grain of comfort they have—that if redundancy occurs in a workplace where there is a customary procedure, at least that customary procedure will be followed and discussions will take place around it.
In view of the number of people wishing to speak on this clause and others, I shall not repeat the arguments that were made in Committee, but it was clear that some Conservative Members did not understand the value of such customary procedures in the practical management of redundancy in any workplace. On that basis alone, simply to maintain the small amount of stability in what is undoubtedly, through proven medical research, a most painful period for any employee, I plead with the House to think most carefully and to support the amendments.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I shall be brief. Many of my constituents in Oldham are employed by Ferranti and I have seen the pain and anguish of people who have worked there nearly all their lives suddenly being made redundant at a few hours' notice. It is a terrible thing. However, we have to strike a balance.
What do we want? Do we want to force receivers to carry on the head count for longer than they could reasonably be expected to do so because of human considerations, or do we want them to shed labour quickly and give confidence to customers and suppliers so that the components and materials keep flowing into the factory and the business is saved, as in the case of Leyland DAF? That company is now flourishing, but it had to drop labour rapidly.

Mr. Miller: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the process by which labour was dropped in that company was in accordance with agreed procedures —and according to his own logic, the agreed procedures demonstrably worked.

Mr. Dickens: The workers I have spoken to in Ferranti—

Mr. Miller: I was referring to Leyland DAF.

Mr. Dickens: Of course. The workers at Ferranti did not think that the procedures had been followed and it was painful for many of my constituents. I went to Ferranti and met the receivers, the trade unions and the management. A decision had to be made whether to save the company by some rapid action or to go through normal procedures—which sometimes take a long time, until no one would supply the company with components or materials and the entire company would fold with the loss of hundreds more jobs.
I have listened carefully to the Opposition. There has to be a balance. If there are grievances, the tribunal system has been used quite successfully. We have to be extremely careful before adopting the Opposition amendments. At the

end of the day, we are looking at saving entire businesses so that our constituents can enjoy having those factories there, paying charges to the local authority and taxes and so on, so that we benefit from their existence. Although there is merit in what the Opposition say, for the reasons that I have given, we should not support the amendments.

Mr. Galloway: I shall be brief so as to allow my colleagues a chance to speak, but we are dealing with a sensitive and potentially devastating issue in this clause —sudden and often unexpected redundancy. I have never had the experience of being made redundant, but as a Member of Parliament I have had to deal with it several times, not least in the case of Leyland DAF, which has a plant in my constituency.

Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman has come damned close.

Mr. Galloway: No, I have never come close to it, damned or otherwise. As a partisan jibe has been made, I shall say this. When a shiver of fear went along the Government Front Bench looking for a spine to run up after Thursday's election, no doubt a number of Conservative Members as well as Ministers had their minds concentrated on the issue of redundancy. They will no doubt be hoping for more than 90 days' notice of their impending demise as workers.
We have all had the experience of small or large-scale redundancies. I was in the Committee corridor when the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) was assiduously—desperately, even—trying to deal with the consequences of the sudden huge redundancy at the London Rubber Company in his constituency. I could sense from the expression on his face the upset and dread which must have been present in the hearts of his constituents. We have all had that experience.
In my own family, before the law laid down the 90-day requirement, I remember my father, having worked for 20 years at the National Cash Register company as a proud engineering worker, coming home crushed by the news that the factory was to make substantial lay-offs, and that he was one of those to be made redundant. We have all had that experience and we know how awesome the axe of sudden redundancy can be. The 90-day period of notice required under current law gives at least some opportunity to make some psychological adjustment, as well as for work force representatives and employers to argue across the table. When the blow ultimately falls at the end of that period, it is often not so bad as it might have been if the decision had been made at the beginning.
The Albion plant of Leyland DAF in my constituency is one of the oldest manufacturing operations in the Clyde area. I was at the factory gates when men who had worked there—for 32 years in one case—were told at nine o'clock in the morning that they must clear their lockers and be out of the plant by midday. They were crushed, dejected, even tearful, and the pitiful experience of watching that happen in such a proud industrial plant was extremely harrowing for me as a constituency Member of Parliament.
All that the new clause asks is that the Government do not use the device of a deregulation Bill to sweep away the little protection that workers have from such sudden and arbitrary redundancies. It is not asking too much of even this Government that they seriously consider that point.

Mr. George Stevenson: The Government have made great play of the alleged reduction in unemployment, but every Member of the House knows that there is still a great fear of unemployment and the knock on the door that says, "You're out of a job. "
The Government's proposal will make that fear much worse. It will hit morale and make people feel that the Government have embarked on a course which, step by step, will remove the protection that they have at the workplace. Serious though they are, we are not discussing health and safety at work or a regulation which may help to prevent a serious tragedy such as a fire. We are discussing some measure of protection for people who are to lose their livelihoods after decades of work, service, commitment and dedication.
In those circumstances, I cannot for the life of me see how the Government can resist the new clause. If they really believe in the rights of individuals, what can be more basic than a provision that agreed procedures will be applied and proper notification given when an individual's livelihood and the welfare of his family is to be taken away? That individual may not find further employment. We all know that the prospects of people over 40 or 45 finding a job are extremely bleak.
In reply to a debate on an earlier amendment, the Minister said that we should not scaremonger because the Government were not about to demolish all the necessary protections and regulations. In attempting to assuage our fears, he said that the Government were simply removing anything that overlapped, was unnecessary or smacked of duplication. Those were the justifications that he gave for the Bill. How in the world can proper notification and adherence to agreed procedures fit into those categories when we are considering people losing their livelihoods? I challenge the Minister to convince us that the new clause would contravene those objectives in any way.
8.15 pm
Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) talk about the need for brevity in sacking people so that a phoenix could rise from the ashes would scarcely believe that, sadly, hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of people had been made redundant in the past 15 years. If the hon. Gentleman argues that business and industry need to be able to sack people more quickly—I do not accept that argument—what has happened in the past 15 years provides plenty of evidence that, even with the present protections, it has not been difficult.
Even on the Government's own criteria, the Minister's stated objectives for the Bill and the events of the past 15 years, the Government can put forward no reasonable objection to the new clause. Even if the Minister is not convinced about the practicalities and necessities, he must be convinced about the humanity of the new clause. When people are about to lose their jobs, they have the basic right to know about it, a right which exists under the protections provided by current law.

Mr. Burden: The reason for the new clause is illustrated by clause 27. Many of us suspected that the Bill, like so many of the Government's other proposals, would be a cowboys' charter. Nowhere else is that more evident than in clause 27, which sanctions unreasonable behaviour by bad employers. Without clause 27, an employer was required simply to abide by agreements and procedures

which he had knowingly entered into with his work force. Even then, if an employer wanted to depart from those procedures, he could do so provided that he was prepared to test the matter at an industrial tribunal. The Government seem to believe that even that is too onerous for an employer. Interestingly, they do not adopt the same approach and standards on the rights of employers, but that is the logic behind clause 27.
Despite the arguments which Opposition Members put forward in Committee, the Government said that they were not prepared to remove or amend the clause. That is why we need the new clause. If they say that it is okay for an employer selecting employees for redundancy to break the rules and depart from procedures which they knowingly entered into, why would it be unreasonable, according to the Government's logic, to expect an employer to abide by basic time limits? Why would it be unreasonable to expect an employer not to sack someone under the guise of redundancy, when the real reason is because his face does not fit, he has been troublesome, an active trade unionist or whatever?
Under the first four clauses of the Bill, the Government could introduce legislation that would specify those factors, and the evidence in clause 27 is that they could well try precisely that, unless they are once again prepared to come to the House and say that their fine words about not wishing to remove necessary protection mean something.
All we are asking for in the new clause is that basic rules of fairness apply on redundancy, selection, time limits, discussions and talking. For goodness' sake, all we are asking the Government to do is guarantee that they will not use the powers that they are taking to themselves under the Bill to sanction an employer who refuses to talk to his employees in that painful situation of redundancy, to which my hon. Friends have referred. What is so difficult about that? It seems to me that the only difficulty for the Government is their ideological dogma—they are not prepared to lay down any basic standards or rules if they apply to employees rather than employers.
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) was wrong when he said that, if an employer departed from the rules on redundancy, the employee could always go to an industrial tribunal. Clause 27 will remove that power. An employer could sack someone and select someone for redundancy quite unreasonably, but if clause 27 stays on the face of the Bill, the employee, on the basis of redundancy legislation, could not take that complaint forward and would have to go through a different route. We had that argument in Committee.
The Minister shook his head in response to what I said earlier, but I have a challenge for the Government. If he believes that what I have said is wrong, let him insert on the face of the Bill a clause, as we are suggesting, that says that Ministers and Conservative Members, or, indeed, hon. Members in any other part of the House, will not use the powers that the Bill will give them to take away redundancy procedures and standards that the House debated, discussed and arrived at, which are by no means as generous as those in many other parts of Europe, but which at least lay down some basic elements of protection.
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth mentioned Leyland DAF. I do not want to go into it in detail, but I feel quite strongly about it, coming from the midlands. The argument about Leyland DAF was not about


how the selections for redundancy took place. The reason why it got into difficulty needs to be traced back far before that.
There are some arguments and lessons for the Government in the way in which they support manufacturing industry. What is relevant to the debate is the spectacle that one saw in Birmingham and elsewhere of brown paper envelopes being given out, with virtually a moment's notice, to say, "You are selected for redundancy," and "You are not." That is not a civilised way to go about things.
Unfortunately, our new clause will not put that one right, but it will at least lay down the basic principles of fairness of discussion of time limits, which existing legislation provides. I hope that even this Government will not find it too difficult to uphold those principles by accepting the new clause.

Dr. Tony Wright: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) spoke movingly about his own experience and that of his father, who, he said, had been crushed by redundancy. Although I wanted to say something about the constitutional importance of the measure, my hon. Friend's speech took me back to think of my own family experience.
My father came out of the RAF after the war—he had stayed in it for a while—then had a job at Stewart and Lloyds steel works in Corby. He would cycle 10 miles there and 10 miles back. He did shift work around the clock. One day, in the early 1960s, he was told that he was not wanted any more—just like that. Not only had his job finished, but in a sense his life. It was before the Labour Government of the 1960s had brought in the redundancy payments provisions, so there were no payments, either.
I thought that we had moved on, not just in a party sense but a social and political sense. I thought that, in terms of developing basic protections for workers, we had moved from one era into a different kind, as was said in the debate on the previous new clause, in health and safety, too. I thought that there had been a kind of growth, a cumulative process, that we had added on, not taken away.
The Government have changed all that. They said that we are not all together on that any more, that we are not all pulling together to improve standards, increase protections and guarantee securities. We have started a new process of chipping away, of erosion, of creating insecurities where previously there were securities. We do not have the time now, but I warn the Government that that will produce consequences for society of which they have the merest inkling at the moment.
Let me focus on the new clause, because it tests the good faith of the Government. It is asking, as the previous one did, whether the Government are prepared to set any parameters around the order-making power that is being claimed for Ministers in the Bill. Is everything possible, or are there parameters? Are some things no-go areas? I put it like that because in Committee we put various outrageous suggestions to the Minister about what those order-making powers might be used for. On the whole, his response was one of relish, that of course he could use them for that. The clause at least puts some parameters of decency around the Bill.
Let us say that the order-making powers that are being claimed in the first part of the Bill should not be against some of the things that define the kind of society that we were. One of those parameters is how we treat people when they are made redundant—a fairly basic parameter of decency. Let us say that, if the Government might want —perhaps they do—to erode those provisions, they should at least come to the House with primary legislation and argue it through. They should have to get that legislation through the House.
Instead, they are saying that they want an order-making power to repeal any legislation that they want to repeal, simply on some kind of spurious test of protection and burden. If the Government and the House are allowed to do that, they will be changing their mind not only about that but about how legislation should happen. That is the crucial point.
That is why I said just now that the new clause is a test of good faith. The test is to say on the face of the Bill that there are parameters beyond which the order-making power will not be used. In the case of the new clause, one of those parameters relates to the treatment of people when they are made redundant. If they fail that test, the conclusion will be of the direst kind. It will be conspicuous and the one that everybody who looks at our proceedings will draw.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The debate has been in marked contrast to the previous one. It has been an excellent debate, and the speeches have, at times, been very moving. They were certainly eloquent and, in all cases, very sincere. I congratulate hon. Members on both sides of the House on this occasion, because of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). Hon. Members have done themselves credit. Even so, the fears of Opposition Members are misplaced, for reasons that I shall explain.
The proposal in new clause 6 relates to procedures for redundancies. I agree that this is a hugely significant sector involving vital elements of protection, and I well understand the anxieties expressed by hon. Members. However, as I have made clear many times, the deregulation order-making power that we seek could be used if, in a particular case, its use would not remove any necessary protection.
I know that we debated the precise meaning of that phrase in Committee, and I do not intend to repeat what I said then. I hope, however, that the circumstances in which the order-making power ought to be used will be clear to hon. Members from a combination of the measures that appear on the face of the Bill—in respect of which the powers do not apply—the illustrative list of measures that we have published separately from the Bill, to which they would apply, and the assurances that I have given in previous debates. There are further protections, with which I shall deal in a moment.

Mr. Stevenson: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for intervening, as I was not a member of the Standing Committee. When he refers to "necessary protection" in the context of the new clause, is he telling us that protection under the relevant sections of the Act referred to is a necessary protection?

Mr. Hamilton: It clearly could be, but I cannot commit myself without examining a specific case.
Let me proceed to the second limb of my argument, which concerns a separate constitutional protection that ought to please hon. Members. We have built in a variety of other safeguards to ensure that use of the power could not be abused. First, consultation is required with representatives of those likely to be substantially affected. A detailed memorandum must then be submitted to Parliament, and an additional period is provided for parliamentary scrutiny, during which the special deregulation committee will consider the proposals—line by line, if appropriate. We shall debate those matters tomorrow night when we discuss the report of the Procedure Committee.
Even if, following those stages, the Government present an order under the power, it will have to be passed under the affirmative resolution procedure, which means that it will require the positive approval of both Houses of Parliament. Hon. Members will have extensive opportunities to participate in debate. Indeed, in some respects the scrutiny procedures recommended by the Procedure Committee would frequently offer more practical opportunities to debate the proposals than are available when we debate primary legislation.
All hon. Members will recall occasions when vast rafts of amendments have been tabled—especially on Report —and there is very little discussion of them because it is late at night and everyone is champing at the bit to go home. In my experience, the procedures laid down as constitutional protections in the passing of Bills are far from being as effective as Opposition Members like to think. I prefer to rest my case on what I consider to be extensive protections.
Amendments Nos. 7, 13 and 15 to clause 27 also seem to be based on a misapprehension. Opposition Members appear mistakenly to believe that the clause will remove fundamental protection from those facing redundancy. They have described circumstances in which employees would be left at the mercy and whim of employers. As I said in Committee, that will not happen. Employees will remain protected against unfair treatment and employers will still be free to reach agreements with trade unions over redundancy procedures if they so wish. The clause simply removes out-of-date and unnecessary legislation whose principal effect is to prevent employers who have to make redundancies from taking the most sensible action to meet the needs of their business and its employees.
I cannot believe that Opposition Members would consider it preferable for an employer who thought it vital to the viability of his business for him to select one employee rather than another to be precluded from doing so by customary rules, with the result that the business foundered and all the employees lost their jobs. The removal of that outdated requirement was suggested by the deregulation task forces, which pointed out that the requirements of section 59(1)(b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 were an inflexible legacy of times now past, hampering employers in selecting for redundancy according to their modern business needs. The requirements also lead to uncertainty, while doing little to ensure that the individual concerned was selected fairly.
Those inflexible arrangements persist because of voluntary agreements that employers may have reached with trade unions many years ago about redundancy selection procedures. Such agreements—a common one

being to select on a "last in, first out" basis—may be entirely inappropriate to current circumstances. As I have said, the very viability of a business might well depend on the skills of its work force, which do not necessarily equate to long service. I fully take the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) about agism: constituency cases that I handle from time to time suggest that it operates in pernicious way. The points that he made, however, were rather wide of the subject that we are debating.
When the agreements to which I have referred have been entered into voluntarily, employers may find that, if they attempt to withdraw from them and introduce alternative selection methods, they fall foul of the statutory requirement to follow "customary arrangements". They may have little certainty that an industrial tribunal would agree that their business needs constituted a special reason justifying such action. Such employers could find themselves compelled to make redundant the very workers whom they most need, just at the time when they most need them. Clearly it is in no one's interests for employers faced with no alternative but to make redundancies to be hampered by additional difficulties presented by the provisions.
It is important to understand that removal of the special requirement will not leave employees unprotected. That leads me to the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). The ordinary unfair dismissal provisions, on which employees would still be able to rely, require employers to follow fair procedures. In deciding what is a fair procedure, the tribunal will take into account all the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Miller: Does not the statute as currently written have a rider requiring the employer to take a series of steps having due regard to the circumstances? Does the Minister agree that, in the exceptional cases that he has described —let us say that a major order collapses and there is urgent pressure on the business—an employer can have due regard to the circumstances and carry out a redundancy exercise without using the legislation?

Mr. Hamilton: I said a moment ago that an uncertainty was involved in the current arrangement, which would not necessarily produce the result that the hon. Gentleman predicts. Among other matters, however, the tribunal will consider whether the ACAS code of practice has been followed. Employers will normally need to warn employees and consult them about the proposals. They will be expected to consider whether redeployment would be a viable alternative, and will need to have a fair basis for selecting those redeployed. Furthermore, if employees' individual contractual rights are not adhered to, the tribunal will want to be satisfied that that is justified.
I believe that the protections about which Opposition Members are so concerned would survive, but in a form that would not prejudice the viability of a business in the circumstances that I have described. The aim of our proposal is to introduce greater flexibility and to enable a business to survive when it might otherwise not do so, thus maximising the number of jobs that might be saved. My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth made much of that in his speech.
Our proposal does not give employers carte blanche to act indiscriminately, it does not leave employees unprotected against unfair treatment, it does not tear up


voluntary agreements that both sides voluntarily wish to retain and it does not affect any contractual arrangements that an employer may have with his individual employees. Hon. Members may be forgiven for thinking that, in the end, it may not do very much, but what it does do at the margin—I emphasise this—is provide a vital extra measure of flexibility in an already difficult employment situation in order to save the business.
In the past few years, we have lived through a pretty terrible recession and I should have thought that all hon. Members would wish to do as much as possible to ensure that, should such circumstances ever occur again, the maximum number of businesses should have the maximum amount of flexibility to save the maximum number of jobs. I rest my case on that explanation and commend the Government's proposals to the House. If the Opposition press the new clause to a vote, I hope that my hon. Friends will resist it.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister has raised more concerns about employment issues in his summing up than were raised during a whole Committee sitting. In Committee we did not have the Government's response to the fourth report of the Select Committee on Procedure which covered the scrutiny of deregulation orders to which the Minister has just referred. If anything was going to give us cause for concern, it would be their response to the 17 recommendations made in that report. The Government felt able to accept only five unreservedly, and their reservations make worrying reading.
The Select Committee suggested:
if the Deregulation Committee reports that the order-making power should not be used in respect of a specific deregulation proposal, no … order should be laid before the House in respect of that proposal.
I do not have to remind the House that the Government would form the majority on the committee and if a deregulation measure were to be opposed, some of the individuals forming part of that majority would have to agree with the Opposition. The decision could be unanimous, but that, in any case, would mean taking a determined stance against a foolish measure introduced by the Government. What is the Government's response? They state:
The Government has made it clear that an adverse recommendation from the Deregulation Committee in respect of the deregulation proposal would be treated by Ministers with the utmost seriousness.
We all know what that means—it will be ignored.
Let us consider another example, which appears in paragraph 40 of the Government's response. The Select Committee had recommended that, for serious deregulation matters, Ministers could be summoned before the deregulation committee. The Government responded by saying that that would be "unprecedented", so the safeguards that the Minister mentioned specifically in his defence of the Government's position are not in the very document that he hoped to use to bolster his case.
Some powerful arguments were advanced by hon. Members other than the Minister and myself, and none was more powerful than that of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). His contribution was the most persuasive that he has made in the House while I have been here. He made clear his concerns for employees in his constituency and they were

graphically illustrated by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). I think that I am quoting the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth correctly when I say that he believes that the tribunal system has been successful. Indeed, he conceded the merits of the case that we had advanced.
My fear is that, without the protection that we seek to incorporate in the Bill, any future deregulation could be put before the committee and, even if the committee unanimously rejected the Government's proposals, the Minister and his successor could ignore that fact. We wish to strike out clause 27 and introduce new clause 6 in order to ensure that proper protection for workers is guaranteed in the future, beyond the life of this Minister and this Government.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 276.

Division No. 235]
[8.45 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cummings, John


Ainger, Nick
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dafis, Cynog


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Ian


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Battle, John
Dewar, Donald


Bayley, Hugh
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Donohoe, Brian H.


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Eagle, Ms Angela


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, Andrew F.
Enright, Derek


Benton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Berry, Roger
Fatchett, Derek


Betts, Clive
Fisher, Mark


Blair, Tony
Flynn, Paul


Blunkett, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boyes, Roland
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith
Fraser, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Galbraith, Sam


Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Byers, Stephen
Gapes, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Godsiff, Roger


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cann, Jamie
Graham, Thomas


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ann
Hardy, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Home Robertson, John






Hoon, Geoffrey
Olner, William


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Neill, Martin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoyle, Doug
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter L.


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Ingram, Adam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Janner, Greville
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Redmond, Martin


Jowell, Tessa
Reid, Dr John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Keen, Alan
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rogers, Allan


Khabra, Piara S.
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sheerman, Barry


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAllion, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Ian
Simpson, Alan


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maclennan, Robert
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


MacShane, Denis
Snape, Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Spellar, John


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mahon, Alice
Stevenson, George


Mandelson, Peter
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marek, Dr John
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Turner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Tyler, Paul


Maxton, John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michael, Alun
Wallace, James


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Milburn, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Miller, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wilson, Brian


Morgan, Rhodri
Winnick, David


Morley, Elliot
Wise, Audrey


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wray, Jimmy


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wright, Dr Tony


Mudie, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Eric Illsley and


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Mr. Alan Meale.


O'Brien, William (Normanton)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Aspinwall, Jack


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkins, Robert


Amess, David
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Arbuthnot, James
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)





Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Gallie, Phil


Baldry, Tony
Gardiner, Sir George


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Garnier, Edward


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gill, Christopher


Bates, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Batiste, Spencer
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bellingham, Henry
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bendall, Vivian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bowis, John
Hague, William


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Hanley, Jeremy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Harris, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Haselhurst, Alan


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawkins, Nick


Burns, Simon
Hayes, Jerry


Burt, Alistair
Heald, Oliver


Butcher, John
Hendry, Charles


Butler, Peter
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Carttiss, Michael
Horam, John


Cash, William
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Churchill, Mr
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Congdon, David
Jack, Michael


Conway, Derek
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jenkin, Bernard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jessel, Toby


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dicks, Terry
Knox, Sir David


Dorrell, Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dover, Den
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Duncan, Alan
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Legg, Barry


Durant, Sir Anthony
Leigh, Edward


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lidington, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Faber, David
Luff, Peter


Fabricant, Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Madel, Sir David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fry, Sir Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian






Merchant, Piers
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stephen, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Stern, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Streeter, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sumberg, David


Moss, Malcolm
Sweeney, Walter


Needham, Richard
Sykes, John


Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thomason, Roy


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ottaway, Richard
Thumham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Paice, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Patnick, Irvine
Tracey, Richard


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trend, Michael


Pawsey, James
Trimble, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trotter, Neville


Pickles, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walden, George


Richards, Rod
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Robathan, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waterson, Nigel


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Watts, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whittingdale, John


Sackville, Tom
Widdecombe, Ann


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Spencer, Sir Derek
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Spink, Dr Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Sproat, Iain
Mr.Timothy Kirkhope.


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 9

APPROVAL OF CERTAIN MARKETS (No. 3)

'(1) Where a person proposes to set up a commercial market within the relevant area which but for the provisions of section 22(1) above would constitute a disturbance of the right of market of a local authority to which subsection 22(2) above applies, the person proposing to set up the market shall apply to that local authority for approval of the setting up of that market.
(2) Where an application for the grant or renewal of approval has been made under subsection (1) above to a local authority, the local authority shall—

(a) give or renew that approval subject to such reasonable conditions as the local authority think fit; or
(b) refuse to give that approval, provided that approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

(3) A grant or renewal of approval under subsection (2) above shall cease to have effect after a period of twelve months beginning with the date on which it is granted or such other longer period as the local authority giving or renewing the approval may determine.
(4) The local authority may charge a reasonable fee in respect of an application for the grant or renewal of an approval under subsection (2) above and different fees may be charged for different classes, sizes and locations of market.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order make further provision as to approvals and regulation in relation to the setting up of rival commercial markets.
(6) A person who sets up a rival commercial market within the relevant area, which but for the provisions of section 22(1) above would constitute a disturbance of a right of market to which section 22(2) above applies without approval of the setting up of that market having been given or as the case may be renewed under subsection (2) above, or who carries on such a market in breach of any conditions attached to the grant or renewal of an approval, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(7) In this section, "local authority", "market" and "right of market", have the same meaning as in section 22 above and "commercial market" means a market other than a market—

(a) which is a temporary market within the meaning of section 37 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982; and
(b) the proceeds of which are to be applied solely or principally for charitable, social, sporting or political purposes, and

"the relevant area" means the area of the local authority in whom the right of market is vested.'.—[Sir Michael Neubert.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Michael Neubert: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 51, in clause 22, page 20, leave out lines 24 to 40.
No. 48, in page 20, line 27, after 'right', insert
'provided that the operator of the rival market makes payment to the owner of the right of market of an amount calculated on such basis as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order'.
No. 53, in page 20, line 27, after 'right', insert
'provided that the rival market is set up outside the relevant area'.
No. 59, in page 20, line 27, at end insert
'but without prejudice to the requirement for that market to be approved under section (Approval of certain markets (No. 3)) below.'.
No. 60, in page 20, line 32, leave out from 'above' to end of line 33 and insert
'and section (Approval of certain markets (No. 3)) below the references to setting up a rival market or a commercial market include continuing to hold such a market.'.
No. 55, in page 20, line 33, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument and after consultation with interested bodies including, in particular, bodies representing the interests of market operators and market traders, make such provision with regard to the licensing of market operators and the licensing of market traders as he may think expedient in consequence of the operation of this section.
(3B) No order shall be made under subsection (3A) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
No. 47, in page 20, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert "local authority" has the same meaning as in section 61 of the Food Act 1984'.
No. 54, in page 20, line 39, after 'fair', insert
the relevant area", means the area of the local authority in whom the right of market is vested.'.
No. 6, in clause 23, page 20, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 21.
No. 52, in page 21, in clause 24, leave out lines 19 to 25.
No. 57, in page 21, line 21, after 'effect', insert
'save in its application to a livestock or wholesale market.'.
No. 58, in page 21, line 25, after 'effect', insert
'save in their application to a livestock or wholesale market'.

Sir Michael Neubert: My interest in the subject of the new clause and amendments is twofold. First, there is Romford market, in my constituency, which has been established for nearly 750 years. It is the heart of the town and the fountainhead of its prosperity. The first connection with Romford that I can remember, long before being selected as candidate for the constituency 25 years ago last month, was when my grandmother took me on the bus to see the cattle in the market. There have not been cattle there since 1959, but I intend to return to the subject of livestock later.
9 pm
My second interest lies in the fact that I am one of a panel of parliamentary advisers to the National Market Traders Federation, which represents the 40,000 or so individual stallholders whose livelihoods are at stake. That risk, together with all the other factors that represent the public interest, must be taken into account.
I do not often find myself out of line with the Government, but on this occasion I am, and must be. I certainly oppose clauses 22, 23 and 24, so it follows that I support amendments Nos. 51 and 52, in my name, which would delete clauses 22 and 24. I also support amendment No. 6, which would delete clause 23, and which was tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) before I could get to the Table Office.
I am supported in my views by the Campaign for Quality Markets, which consists of a whole list of organisations. At the head of the list is the National Association of British Market Authorities, supported by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Market Officers, the Manorial Society of Great Britain, the National Market Traders Federation and the Showmen's Guild.
That is a formidable array of opponents for the Government to take on, and one wonders why they are doing it. As recently as March 1991 a letter from the Department of the Environment to the secretary of the National Association of British Market Authorities—NABMA—acknowledged that there had been
very few complaints about market rights, and that in 1987–88 the government had reviewed the system.
At that time, it had been concluded that franchised market rights could not be compulsorily appropriated without compensation. Taking into account the requirements to pay compensation, the scarcity of complaints, the minimal part that markets play in United Kingdom trading activities, and the possible damage to centuries of tradition and heritage, the Government decided not to pursue the question of abolition.
However, two or three years later the Government are changing tack. One wonders why. The rights in question are known to have existed for centuries. It is easy to see why they might provoke attention. The concept of a market as having an exclusive area within a radius of six and two thirds miles, within which no rival market may start without permission, and without paying compensation, is of course archaic. Indeed, it is medieval in origin.
For the benefit of those who are not cognoscenti in such matters, let me explain that in the middle ages 20 miles was considered to be the distance covered by a journeyman in a day. The day was divided into three parts—six and two thirds miles to travel to the market, one third of the day —equivalent to another six and two thirds miles—at the market, and another six and two thirds miles back. That is the reason for the restrictions.
One has to ask, given that that right has existed for hundreds of years, why it has never been challenged by an ambitious, thrusting Minister. Why has no aspiring Asquith, a budding Baldwin, or even an up-and-coming Churchill thought fit to make his fame and fortune by challenging that archaic and medieval right? If one examines the issue, the answer is that, although it may seem, like the conventions of the House, to be a little outdated, it is an effective means of control of markets, and it has ensured that markets have prospered in towns up and down the country. That is why I seek to defend the status quo. On balance, the advantages and the public interest lie in retaining it rather than abolishing it.

Mr. David Nicholson: Would my hon. Friend tell the House whether there is evidence that bodies wanting to run rival or competitive markets have been disadvantaged by the existing situation? On Friday, when I had a meeting with my local authority in Taunton Deane, I put that question to it and was told that nobody had applied to hold a rival or competitive market, but that there was the constant danger of fly-by-night traders—here today and gone tomorrow—and that they were the bane, not only of health and safety, environmental health, Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue officers, but of the police.

Sir Michael Neubert: My hon. Friend makes a timely intervention, because I was about to ask what evidence there was to justify the change of tack. We had a period of consultation last summer, in which almost 3,000 representations were received—10 to one against the Government's proposals. None the less, the Government decided to go ahead with the proposition. That does not lend encouragement to consultation or, certainly, does not engender confidence in consultation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) asks what other evidence exists. The only evidence I have is of an enterprise called In Shops, which has 57 stores in which it operates markets under licence. It has a multi-million pound turnover and, as far as I can see, is doing very nicely thank you with the law as it is. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will forgive me the comparison, but it seems that In Shops wants to acquire the same dominant position in markets as Sainsbury plc has in supermarket retailing.
If the Government want to make a change, why make it now? My understanding of the public's opinion is that the change is being introduced just at a time when they are becoming increasingly concerned about the proliferation of fly-by-night markets and, especially, car boot sales. Some hon. Members in the Chamber may still believe car boot sales to be charity fairs in people's back gardens. I can tell my hon. Friends that they are now big business. It is not simply distressed stately home owners who find the need to stage car boots sales, but, in the midlands, one can have as many as 15,000 people attending such markets and buying goods that are obviously not the contents of somebody's


home, but are simply stock taken in to sell at those unlicensed markets, which can start up anywhere—in a farmer's field or where they will.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I am listening to my hon. Friend's speech with great interest, but will he tell me whether the car boot sale is the kind of sale in which he would expect to find second-hand filing cabinets—without the anti-tilt mechanism—such as those, as we all know, the House is getting rid of in their hundreds, if not thousands, to abide by a regulation which is not mandatory and which will cost the taxpayer tens of thousand of pounds?

Sir Michael Neubert: It is one of my greatest concerns that second-hand House of Commons filing cabinets may find their way into car boot sales, be purchased at a knock-down price, taken into the home of some unsuspecting person and fall over on an innocent child or several innocent children in circumstances that I dare not envisage. Certainly the sale of stolen property is now, very often, facilitated by car boot sales. That is why the Association of Chief Police Officers is also opposed to the Government's proposal to remove all restrictions.
Why, having decided to make the change, should the Government decide to make the change in this way? I regret that I find myself at odds with the Government here. It is not the first time that that has been the case, and certainly not in relation to market rights. For two years, both in and out of government, I successfully frustrated the passage of a private Bill, the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill, which sought, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, to undermine the Romford market charter.

Mr. Robert Banks: My hon. Friend will recognise that there are markets that are governed by the statute of market ouvert. The Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill, which has come from another place, seeks to repeal 800 years of that statute. Does my hon. Friend believe that the repeal of the statute will expose those markets to competition and that rival markets will be set up? The market ouvert statute provides for certain conditions for the sale of goods. Would my hon. Friend comment on that?

Sir Michael Neubert: It is difficult to comment without the necessary background and briefing. Although, with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), I am a member of the Committee which considered the matter this morning, I am in ignorance of which markets have market ouvert rights and which would be affected. However, my hon. Friend raises a matter that might apply to the whole question of markets. The right of market ouvert is as ancient as, if not more ancient than, the rights I am discussing now in relation to the new clause. There is a degree of incoherence and inconsistency in the proposals.

Mr. Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill and he said that he had played a role in successfully frustrating it. Conservative Redbridge council spent £176,000 in preparing the legal work and promoting the Bill, only to have it blocked in the House. The council then tried to reintroduce the Bill. It is now paying £4,000 a year to the hon. Gentleman's local authority of Havering for a desolate site underneath a flyover, which has no stall in operation, although there is a sign in the middle of Ilford which says, "Redbridge market". If one follows the sign,

one sees nothing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an indictment of the Conservative council which has just been defeated in Redbridge?

Sir Michael Neubert: Wittingly or not, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) has supported my case, both in what I have said earlier and in what I shall say later, if he allows me to reach that point. There is an excess of market capacity, which makes this proposal especially serious for those who have established markets.
The proposal runs counter to recent guidance from the Department of the Environment on out-of-town shopping centres. We are at last realising that such centres drain trade from the centre of towns, disembowelling towns and villages and leaving them empty, with shutters up. To allow markets to start up anywhere within the periphery of a town runs counter to that realisation because it would have exactly the effect that the Government are now concerned to limit by their guidance to planning authorities.
The proposal excludes the private owners of market charters. If the argument is that market charter rights and exclusive franchises limit competition, how can it be justifiable to allow those rights to continue in private hands but not in the hands of local authorities? There is some inconsistency there, I should have thought.
A further inconsistency is that the proposal apparently excludes Covent Garden. Covent Garden has protection for a mile around its market by virtue of the Covent Garden Market Act 1966; that protection would remain. There is also the proposition that there should be no compensation. That presumably is the reason for sparing privately owned markets from the proposal. It seems open to challenge that local authorities should not be compensated for the loss of their rights; some of them have paid heavily for those rights in years gone by. Expropriation without compensation seems to me, as a non-lawyer, to be a denial of natural justice.
Surely there is also an unseen cost to the Treasury and taxpayers. If local authorities currently derive benefitincome—from the holding of such markets, and if markets are to be affected by the new competition which will be introduced by the proposal, surely there will be a shortfall that will need to be made up by either the council tax payer or the general taxpayer in support grant. I wonder whether the Treasury has noticed that.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I supported the hon. Gentleman when he opposed the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill. Many local authorities have modernised their town centres. One of the areas in which there has been great investment in many cases is that of new open-air and indoor markets, and they will suffer severe financial loss if the problem that he has highlighted is not addressed seriously.

Sir Michael Neubert: Investment is also a consideration.
I shall mention one further feature of the proposals—the abolition of byelaw powers. Apparently, it is only those that refer to markets, not those that are generally available. My own London borough of Havering used the powers as recently as 1989. That is especially important with regard to livestock or wholesale markets where the clearing of


passageways, the conduct of buyers, hygiene matters and general management are often the subject of byelaws which are necessary.
What my new clause and the amendments associated with it seek to do is to provide counter-proposals, which I hope the Government will be prepared to consider. I shall summarise my proposals as follows. Control would be limited not to the six-and-two-thirds miles radius but to that part which is in the administrative area of the relevant local authority. There would be a special case needed for the City of London because its principal markets—Billingsgate, Spitalfields and Smithfield—are outside the square mile. That would remove the vexatious question of one local authority having jurisdiction over a market in another local authority area. Control would be by means of approval; it is not to be unreasonably withheld and not at an unreasonable fee for the application. Markets solely or principally—I am sure that this will reassure my hon. Friends—for charitable, social, sporting or political purposes would not require that approval; and byelaws would be retained as necessary.
To sum up, that alternative approach would be better than removing centuries-old safeguards and putting nothing in their place. I trust that the Government will think again. Just as tower blocks are monuments to the architecture of the 1960s, empty shops, empty stalls and empty marketplaces could be the consequence of mistaken planning policies. This could be another mistaken judgment. The Government should recognise charter markets for what they are—the heart of communities in towns throughout the country. Markets need to thrive and prosper. They deserve better by the Bill.

Mr. Fatchett: I welcome the new clause of the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and the consequential amendments. For those of us who served on the Standing Committee, may I say that we wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman's comment about the interest in this issue and the importance of markets to many communities up and down the country. Markets are a cherished part of local communities and an important part of local economic activity.
I agree almost wholly with the hon. Gentleman in asking how the Government have got themselves into the situation in which they now find themselves, because it seems that there is little support for the proposals in the Bill. If there were a straw poll of public opinion or, indeed, in terms of the consultation process, it is abundantly clear that virtually everyone would be against the Government's proposals.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to take us back to the consultation process. The result of that process was a 10:1 vote against the proposals. The hon. Gentleman argued that there were particular interests. There were some keen interests which were represented by local communities, consumers and those with legitimate market trading interests. Those people took the initiative to write in. It is sometimes easy for Ministers to dismiss a consultation process if it does not come up with the right result for Ministers, but the hon. Member for Romford is absolutely correct in saying that there will be no faith in the consultation process if Ministers simply dismiss it and go ahead with their own proposals.
In the Standing Committee, the Opposition tabled a new clause which we thought would provide a way forward and which would deal with the concerns on the issue. The new

clause would have given licensing powers to local authorities which they could not use unreasonably. Those powers were designed to protect legitimate traders, small business interests and the rights of consumers. Unfortunately, it was rejected in Committee, but it seems to me—I say this to my hon. Friends—that what the hon. Gentleman is aiming for with new clause 9 is extremely close to our objectives in the new clause which was discussed in Standing Committee.
There is a wide acceptance that there is a need to modernise the existing law, and I have not spoken to any local authority representative who does not recognise that. However, they also recognise that there are legitimate interests which must be protected. What the Government have done with the clauses which currently stand on the face of the Bill is to throw out those legitimate interests. There are genuine and deep concerns among market traders who have run businesses for many years. They feel that their interests will be undermined by people who will not maintain the same standards and who will not employ the same consumer protection.
There are consumer interests. We all know about the proliferation of car boot sales, and what is happening in relation to them. An article in The Times last August described what happened when a journalist went to look at a car boot sale which took place not far from the hon. Member for Romford's constituency. The organisers said that all that they had done was to pick up goods from individual households which were trying to clear items which were no longer needed and which then could be sold off at a cheap price. The reporter said that it was quite surprising to see one household selling more than a dozen exercise bicycles at £5 a time. There seemed to be some doubt about the interests of one family or of their legitimate ownership of the exercise bicycles.
There are real problems which must be sorted out in terms of protecting the public at car boot sales. There is a need to modernise, but also to recognise the legitimate interests which exist, and that is the basis of the hon. Gentleman's new clause.
What is the way forward? I suggest to the Government that the way forward is to start again and, this time, to listen and get it right. They must modernise the law and protect legitimate interests. They must withdraw the existing clauses from the Bill, and listen to what the opposition have had to say—not just the Opposition in this place, but the opposition throughout the country. They must recognise the deep community interests, and they must talk to the parties who have legitimate concerns.
I know that local authorities are prepared to talk to the Government to come up with a sensible and modernised law which will meet all requirements. The Government must get away from their ideological drive which says that deregulation is the only way forward. There are interests which need to be balanced, and good government and good administration are about balancing those interests. The Opposition will co-operate as far as possible if the Government withdraw the existing clauses from the face of Bill. We will work with them to come up with a new, sensible and modernised law which will protect all of the interests that the hon. Member for Romford mentioned in his speech.
I shall finish with what may be my only partisan point. I have a letter from a market trader, who is a constituent of the Minister for Corporate Affairs. This person wrote to me


suggesting that clauses 21, 22 and 23—as they then were —of the Bill should be taken out and scrapped. He said in the final paragraph:
The only way to secure my vote at the next election is if you ensure that these proposals are thrown out immediately.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): Oh, dear.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, dear." I should have thought that it was in the interests of Conservative Members to listen to that. Votes and support are rather limited. Market traders throughout the country would welcome the changes that we are talking about.

Dame Jill Knight: There was some disagreement among market traders about that particular statement. I think that I speak for hon. Members from all parties when I say that we are not much impressed by blackmail. We are impressed by good arguments.

Mr. Fatchett: I would hardly call it blackmail. We are offering to support a modernised approach and a modernised law. That is the way to make progress. We are offering that co-operation.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The point about the threat that was made in the letter is that it shows that the campaign has been highly orchestrated. I happen to support my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir Michael Neubert) because I wish to see changes to the Bill, for good reasons. However, the thing that almost made me decide not to support the amendment was people using in 20 or 30 letters that I have received exactly the same phrase. It was taken straight off the typescript that was issued by an organisation. Lobbying in that way is surely not the way to conduct a campaign.

Mr. Fatchett: It is probably a basic rule of democracy that our constituents have a right to say that they will not vote for us in a future election. Sometimes that is reflected in the ballot box. They have that right and they have expressed it. As Members of Parliament, we all know that there are organised campaigns. Good luck to people. That is part of an essential, vibrant democracy. People have expressed their views. Many communities up and down the country have expressed their views.
I repeat that the Government should withdraw the clauses. Let us start again, take the clauses out of the Bill and have a proper, modern perspective on the law.

Mr. Sainsbury: It gives me particular pleasure to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on his powerful and eloquent defence of his historic market, which is almost 750 years old, and what he described as centuries-old safeguards. My hon. Friend and I started a period of silence together in the House in 1983 when we became members of that important organisation, the Whips Office. The House will be aware of what it missed during the period when my hon. Friend had to be silent except when moving those important motions that brought our proceedings to an end.
I remind the House that we passed what are now clauses 22 to 24 in Committee. However, we have listened carefully to the views that have been expressed and the points that have been put to us on the measure, most forcefully and eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member

for Romford, but also by several other hon. Members and other interested parties, including many market traders across the country.
In the past few days we have given particular consideration to the proposals for reform which have been suggested by the National Association of British Market Authorities, supported, as my hon. Friend said, by several other distinguished organisations. I should like to stress that it has never been the Government's intention to remove the ability of authorities to run markets. However, I recognise that fears have been expressed that removal of market franchise rights would seriously weaken the ability of local authorities to control temporary markets such as car boot sales.
Fears have also been expressed that there would be a real threat to some city centres—a threat which has already been reflected in tonight's debate—if those rights were entirely removed. We have had detailed discussions with interested parties about those fears.
We remain very much of the opinion that the present untrammelled rights of authorities cannot be justified. I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that there is a need to modernise the law. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about doing that. However, we also recognise the strength of concern that has been expressed. We now believe that the right approach is to withdraw clauses 22, 23 and 24 and discuss further with all interested parties how best to remove the adverse effects of market franchise monopoly rights. We hope then to bring forward amendments, on an agreed basis, in another place.
Having said that, I might help the House by turning to some key points in the new clause and the amendments that are before us, as well as in the proposals that have been put forward by the National Association of British Market Authorities.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: When the Government are reconsidering this matter will they bear in mind the fact that it concerns deregulation, and not regulation? We do not seek, under the Bill, to bring back provisions to regulate car boot sales. Such regulation should be the subject of different legislation.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise the deregulatory nature of this important Bill. When I comment on some of the key points he will perhaps realise what we are seeking to do.
The new clause and the other amendments, which reflect the proposals of NABMA, have been eloquently presented by my hon. Friend. They contain some very constructive proposals on how to remove the potential for abuse of market franchise rights. The NABMA proposals would introduce a measure of deregulation while retaining the underlying need for some regulation of markets to protect the consumer interest. It is those suggestions that lie behind new clause 9.
The first NABMA proposal is that a system of approval for markets should replace market franchise rights and that approval should not be withheld unreasonably. The House will recognise that an approval system would, in turn, require detailed provisions covering the applications for approvals, the procedures by which they were handled and related matters. It might be preferable simply to restrict the exercise of existing franchise rights so that they cannot be


exercised in an unreasonable way. If this approach were adopted it would certainly be necessary to define "unreasonable" so that all concerned know where they stand. I suggest that we should seek to prevent authorities from being able to stop rival markets when it is clearly in the public interest for them to operate. But this is clearly a complex area on which further discussion is needed.

Mr. Miller: 1 am very pleased about the position that the Government have adopted in respect of this matter. If what we have here returns to the House in a different form will the Minister, given my hon. Friend's commitment and given the points that were made in relation to some local authority issues—in Committee, I cited as an example the difficulties faced by local authorities in Ellesmere Port and Neston and in Chester in relation to a particular car boot sale—commit the Government to in-depth consultation with local authorities before introducing further legislation?

Mr. Sainsbury: I thought that I had already made it clear that, following the withdrawal of the provisions—and I hope that my hon. Friend will think it right to seek leave to withdraw his proposed new clause—we should consult very fully before introducing in another place what I hope would be agreed proposals, which would then come to this Chamber at a later stage.
The second of NABMA's proposals suggests that there is a need to ensure that any licence fees levied on a new market by a local authority for the right to trade in restricted areas would be reasonable. I agree with that proposal, and I hope that it will be endorsed by the whole House.
Thirdly, we agree that there is a clear distinction between commercial markets, which operate primarily for commercial profit, and those whose purpose is to raise money for charitable, sporting, social or even political purposes. It follows from that distinction that noncommercial markets should not be treated in the same way.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Hon. Members probably do not realise that I often attend car boot sales on a Sunday if I have a couple of hours to spare. I see the car boot sale as very much a people's market. That is a very modern right and there has been an explosion of car boot sales. I welcome them and I know that millions of people enjoy them. Surely Ministers must consider them closely. People want car boot sates and they do not want unnecessary regulations to boot them out again. If someone who owns property says, "I'll lease this to you, to run a car boot sale," surely that is good business and if I come along in my car with whatever I want to sell, I can do so.

Mr. Sainsbury: Clearly the hon. Gentleman is reflecting a view that I hope that the whole House will recognise. Many people derive pleasure from attending car boot sales—the hon. Gentleman clearly does.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's markets started off as cart boot sales and that if legislation of this sort had existed and Parliament had debated it they would never have got off the ground—not Sainsbury or Marks and Spencer or Mr. Alan Sugar, who also started on a barrow in a market?

Mr. Sainsbury: I would love to enter into a longer discussion of the historic development of retailing, but

there is a risk that you might rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and I could discuss that on another occasion.
Nothing that I have said so far has been directly relevant to car boot sales, but it is clear that there are both concerns about them and concerns that they should not be unreasonably restrained. I said that we intended to consult interested parties on market franchise rights, with a view to producing agreed measures in another place. We intend that the powers available to local authorities to control commercial car boot sales would in no way be weakened by those measures. It is clear from the existing position that those powers do not prevent car boot sales from taking place.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) voiced the minority view. Does the Minister agree that car boot sales are not regulated and have become a conduit for stolen, counterfeit and unsafe goods, especially unsafe electrical goods? While I am on my feet, I must tell him that I am grateful that he has seen fit to withdraw the clauses. It is a sign of strength and not of weakness.

Mr. Sainsbury: We are running the risk of debating car boot sales, which are clearly a matter of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House, rather than market franchise rights, which are the subject of new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I advise my hon. Friend that his announcement to the House will be warmly welcomed, not least by those of my constituents who operate and make their living in the indoor and outdoor markets and who administer them?
Does he believe that there will be adequate time after the passage of the Bill through the House for the necessary meaningful consultation with all the interested parties, to enable the other place to introduce new clauses into the Bill, which will come back here in due course? Might it not be appropriate for the matter to be dealt with in separate legislation?

Mr. Sainsbury: We are not starting from scratch. There has already been much consultation. The NABMA letter dated 26 April—it is very recent—was the result of many deliberations by that organisation and the others that supported its letter. We look forward to taking those consultations further, on the basis of the proposals in the letter, of my hon. Friend's new clause and in the light of my remarks. I have no reason to suppose that we will not have adequate time to produce amendments, if we can reach agreement on them in another place.

Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Sainsbury: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like to make some progress.
The next point that we need to address in any further proposals is that the present market franchise rights can spill over into neighbouring local authority areas with the wholly undesirable result that one local authority with a franchise market can frustrate the attempts of a neighbouring council to set up a new market. Examples of the undesirable effects of that have been provided in earlier


discussions by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). NABMA, therefore, proposes that a local authority's market rights should be restricted to its boundaries or a radius of six and two thirds miles from the market—whichever is the nearer—and we see a great deal of sense in that.

Mr. Robert Banks: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He has spoken about the historic rights of markets and I appreciate what he has said tonight and the decisions that have been taken. In the course of the consultations that he is proposing, will he look carefully at the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill, which has come to the House from another place, so that he can carefully examine the rights that appertain to certain markets—those called market ouvert—which go back some 800 years, and to consider whether the Government will withdraw their support for that Bill?

Mr. Sainsbury: The market ouvert arrangements are archaic, to say the least, and there is grave concern about the way in which they give rights to purchasers of goods in certain markets during the hours of daylight perhaps providing too much opportunity for the handling of stolen goods. That is a different measure, however, and perhaps we will discuss it further on another occasion.
Obviously we have not had time since the NABMA letter came in and since my hon. Friend tabled his new clause, for full and detailed discussion of these proposals, but we believe that they may well offer the basis of an agreed approach. We intend to discuss the matters further with the interested parties, including consumer bodies as well as market operators and traders, with the aim of achieving deregulation which does not threaten legitimate interests, including the continuance of historic markets and authorities' existing powers over car boot sales. We hope, therefore, to table amendments on an agreed basis in another place.
In the meantime, we accept that clauses 22 to 24, as drafted, go too far and we propose that those clauses be deleted. Therefore, I ask the House to accept amendments Nos. 51 and 52 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and others, which would delete respectively clauses 22 and 24 and to accept amendment No. 6, in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), which would delete clause 23. I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, if he thinks fit, to withdraw new clause 9. In that way we shall clear the way to further discussion with a view to reaching agreed proposals.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I rise very briefly to support the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). He and I both spoke in the debate on the Romford markets in the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill, to which he referred earlier. I am pleased that Government have decided to withdraw the clauses.
I represent the constituency of Barnsley, Central. Barnsley has a market right dating back to the 13th century which led to the development of Barnsley as a market town. In the 1960s and 1970s Barnsley had the largest open-air market in the country. I wish that we still had it, but unfortunately it has now gone.
I am extremely grateful that the Government have decided to withdraw the clauses and I hope that, with the co-operation of all concerned, particularly the Campaign for Quality Markets in which the hon. Member for Romford has taken a lead role, sensible proposals can be brought before the House for the regulation of markets in the future. I should make just one brief comment on the idea that car boot sales are something that a local charity will organise on a Sunday afternoon when everyone can turn up and sell the contents of their attics.
Things have moved on and car boot sales are now commercial enterprises. In Leeds, people queue from 10 o'clock on Saturday nights to be first in line to take part in a car boot sale that opens at 6.30 on Sunday mornings. It takes place not in cars but in transit vans and lorries that bring goods to be sold at commercial markets. Those traders do not sell at car boot sales; they are commercial traders and a great number of car boot sales have now become commercial markets. The idea of a Sunday afternoon charity car boot sale has now been overtaken by commercial traders.
Another example in Barnsley—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We need no more examples of car boot sales under the new clause. I call Mr. Anthony Coombs.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: It would be remiss of an hon. Member whose constituency has market franchise rights and who voted enthusiastically for the Bill in Committee not to say that I am concerned about the Government's reaction. The reason is that I believe that market franchise rights are anti-competitive and therefore against the interests of consumers. They prevent competition from legitimately springing up and, incidentally, have little effect on car boot sales.
My council does not benefit, as a result of having market franchise rights, from being able to deter car boot sales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) mentioned the campaign for quality markets and mentioned a series of organisations. Interestingly, the only organisations that he did not mention were those that represent consumers. It is significant that the Consumers Association is strongly in favour of the Bill, although it says that car boot sales should be better regulated. We made that point in Committee and I reiterate it today. But that is far from saying that to give only 50 per cent. of local authorities powers that effectively allow them to restrict competition from their own markets is viable, logical or appropriate for a country approaching the 21st century.

Mr. Clapham: How does the hon. Gentleman reach the conclusion that market franchise rights are anticompetitive when they provide the context for market competition?

Mr. Coombs: The reason why market franchise rights are anti-competitive is that people in my constituency have been trying to set up a reasonable, well-regulated service to consumers but have been unable to do so as a result of the operation of market franchise rights. That is anticompetitive and against the interests of consumers. It is therefore dangerous to argue for the retention of market franchise rights as the hon. Gentleman just has.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I congratulate the Minister on seeing the sense of the argument against the Government's position? The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) is arguing that franchise rights exercised by local authorities are anti-competitive. Why, then, does he not support legislation to remove similar rights from private markets?

Mr. Coombs: I support any legislation that increases competition. By abolishing market franchise rights that give local councils an opportunity to restrict competition in favour of markets in their own areas or those markets to which they choose to give that right, competition and thereby consumer choice will be increased.
Although I understand the tactical reasons for the changes that my hon. Friend the Minister announced tonight, in any consultations that he has in the Lords, he should bear in mind that any changes that he brings back to this House must satisfy one criterion: they should not allow councils or any other operators a monopoly power over alternative operators who wish to set up in an area, in a way that would restrict consumer choice and therefore give the customer a worse deal.
The Conservative party is all about free enterprise and giving consumers the choice that they want. It is about competition, because that gives consumers the best: deal. I hope that that will be reflected in any proposals that my hon. Friend the Minister brings back to the House.

Sir Michael Neubert: Before I respond to what my right hon. Friend the Minister has generously said this evening, I shall make two points and attempt to restore my right-wing credentials with one or two of my hon. Friends who are not persuaded, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who contributed to this short debate. The debate would have been much longer if it had not been for the what my right hon. Friend said.
I would like to think of myself as an enthusiastic supporter of the free market, but I have never been in favour of a complete free-for-all. All markets are regulated. For a start, we operate within the European Community, which is a controlled protected market. Whatever level one goes down, one will find regulations. So we are seeking to achieve a degree of balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) spoke about market franchise rights being anti-competitive. I invite him to come along to Romford market on a Saturday morning, where he will see 300 individual stallholders engaged in intensive competition. Obviously, checks and balances are provided, but little evidence was provided, either in Committee or tonight, and he has not been able to provide evidence of the way in which that is seriously inhibiting competition from other enterprises. It has simply has not been demonstrated. The overwhelming weight of evidence is against the case that he makes.
I now come to my right hon. Friend and his warm personal recollections of our entry into government together in 1983. I am very glad that, at this stage of our partnership, he was able to respond to the debate, because he has seen that what he proposed—the withdrawal of the three clauses relating to market franchise rights, and the reconsideration of the whole issue—has been welcomed by the whole House, not least myself, and in tirne for amendments to be tabled in the Lords along the lines of the

new clauses and amendments presented tonight, and by me in moving the new clause. It is a constructive approach, which has shown the House of Commons at its best. It is an issue that is more important, perhaps, than was first thought by the people coming across it.
There are serious implications for the public interest in what will be decided by the House. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not exclude the possibility that, when he considers all the matters once again, it may require a further measure of Government legislation rather than amendments to the Bill, which, as one of my hon. Friends rightly pointed out, is a deregulation Bill and may not necessarily lend itself to meet the circumstances of changing commercial practice, particularly the incidence of car boot sales. But, my right hon. Friend having so generously responded to the representations made tonight, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

CHANGE OF LANDLORD: SECURE TENANTS

'(1) The Housing Act 1988 shall be amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2) In section 94–

(a) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted—"(1) The right conferred by this Part shall not be exercisable by a public sector landlord, the council of a county or any other body which is not independent of such a landlord or council."
(b) subsections(3) to (7) shall be omitted.

(3) Subsections (1)(a) and (2) of section 106 shall be omitted'.—[Mr. Thurnham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to move the new clause and to explain that it is very simple. Its purpose is to allow the tenant of a council house to choose who his landlord should be, without any restrictions. It is in the nature of a probing amendment and I am grateful for the opportunity that I had a few days ago to discuss the proposal with my hon. Friend the Minister. I congratulate him on this excellent Bill, and on the opportunity that the Bill allows to introduce another proposal to get rid of regulation. I am grateful for the support of many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs)—I see that he is in his place —for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
Colleagues may already be aware of arguments that I made in a Conservative Political Centre pamphlet entitled "Choose Your Landlord":
I have always thought it unfair that elderly pensioners and council tenants unable to obtain a mortgage easily should lose out on valuable discounts under the Right-to-Buy,
The new clause would, for instance, help the elderly tenant of a council who did not wish to enjoy that right but who wanted, perhaps, his son or another relative or friend to become his landlord. At present such a tenant would have to contrive an arrangement to bring that about, and I have no doubt that that happens. He would have to borrow money from his son, purchase the house under the right to buy and keep it for three years in order not to lose any of his discounts. He would then be free to sell it—if he wished —to his son, who could become his landlord and to whom he could repay the loan. The new clause would help to avoid that rigmarole.
Under the existing law, the council would not be allowed to sell such a tenanted house directly to the chosen new landlord without first gaining the approval of the Housing Corporation, which would have to be satisfied that the new owner was financially viable and demonstrably committed to long-term rental and repair. In practice, that rules out deals within a family or between friends.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister will know, under the excellent "tenants' choice" arrangements, some 24 local authorities have sold all their housing to housing associations, following a ballot producing a majority decision in favour. Such large-scale voluntary transfers are very welcome, but they do not help the single tenant who wants to have the landlord of his or her choice, especially in areas where local authorities might be entirely opposed to transfers of that kind.
My new clause would allow private individuals to become landlords on council estates. It would give a boost to the right-to-buy scheme, which has already benefited 1.4 million tenants and is now benefiting some 50,000 per annum—not the rate of earlier years, but still significant. Moreover, it would give the sale of council houses in general a big boost.
The proposals should be welcomed. They will further the revival of the private rented sector, which—in the north-west, at any rate—is already making a large contribution to the social rented sector. Some 60 per cent. of the North West Landlords Association's tenants are on benefits, according to a recent survey.
I look forward to my right hon. Friend's presenting a housing Bill, perhaps next year; that would enable these unnecessary restrictions to be removed, if we do not remove them tonight, and make for a free housing market. I wish this excellent Bill well—I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he has guided it—and welcome the opportunity to flag up the need to deregulate the sale of council houses.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I do not wish to impugn the motives of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) in giving an individual tenant the chance to choose his or her landlord, but I must point out the pitfalls. Those of us whose constituencies contain council houses are probably all aware of the problems that some tenants —especially elderly tenants—have experienced when relatives who are less than scrupulous have bought houses for them and then left them without repairs. If that can happen to a small minority—I do not pretend that it is a majority problem—even when relatives are involved, I am concerned about the plight in which some people would find themselves when opting for another landlord.
Moreover, we know that a number of tenants have been induced to buy their houses by concerted advertising campaigns run by people who see a chance of acquiring an asset on behalf of the resident. In return for a long-term lease from a private person, tenants have been induced to buy their council houses; they have then found that they do not actually own them, have run into problems with getting repairs done and have come to grief. I do not wish to overstate the case, but it has happened, and not only on a few occasions.
In the past fortnight or so, there has been a fire in a hostel owned by a private landlord in Scarborough. Two of that landlord's companies have gone bust with debts of

£350,000. The council was instructing him to carry out repairs, but he did not feel obliged to do so until he had the funds, and we are all aware of the fatal consequences of that delay. I do not want to prejudge the case, but it is important that there is some mechanism—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
That at this day's sitting, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Griffiths: I conclude my remarks by tying together the three points that I have made.
I have here a copy of a press release issued by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). It states:
Peter Thurnham's New Clause 2 calls for an amendment to the regulations covering sales of council houses to private landlords; councils would not be allowed to reject a bidder on the basis of his quality or previous record".
On the face of it, that statement may not seem threatening, provided that the landlord's previous record was good and that he was someone of good standing. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what would happen if a landlord such as the one in whose property the fire occurred last week were now to offer to buy that property. Again, without wishing to judge the case, I think that it is unlikely that such a person would in the present circumstances be allowed by a responsible council to bid although, if he were to be exonerated after the inquiry, his reputation may be restored. They are my genuine reservations about the new clause.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I welcome the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) to debate this important topic. I also welcome his comments, especially those that were personally flattering to me. This is an important topic, and the sale of council houses has been one of the Government's most successful policies of the past 15 years. That policy will endure and I share my hon. Friend's aspiration that more council tenants can be provided with the opportunity to own their own homes in the years to come.
The main effect of the new clause would be to delete the current requirement under tenants' choice legislation for potential new landlords to be approved by the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales. Tenants' choice, which was introduced by part IV of the Housing Act 1988, gives council tenants who want to go on renting their homes but who are dissatisfied with the services that they receive from their present landlord the opportunity to change to another landlord of their choice. Under the scheme, the final outcome is decided by a ballot of all eligible tenants which will take place only after the alternative landlord has set out clearly the terms and conditions on offer. Tenants who vote against transfer stay with the council. Only socially responsible stable bodies committed to the long-term business of rented housing are able to acquire property under tenants' choice and all such landlords must therefore be approved by the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales.
The role of the Housing Corporation in approving landlords is to ensure that potential new landlords will retain housing acquired for letting at rents which those in low-paid employment can afford to demonstrate proper systems of financial control, financial viability and high standards of housing management. The Government are keen to encourage the private rented sector, and the Housing Corporation's requirements are intended to provide reassurance to tenants about their potential future landlord's standards. The requirements are not intended to limit the types of landlord who may come forward with a bid to acquire housing under the tenants' choice legislation. Indeed, the Housing Corporation's own guidance makes it clear that new landlords could include not just housing associations but commercial landlords, individuals such as those my hon. Friend referred to in his speech, and tenant-controlled bodies as well. An individual or organisation which does not have approved status can then apply for it.
The Housing Corporation also has an important: role to play in assessing the financial viability and management of potential landlords. In tenants' choice cases, a sum of money is generally paid by the local authority to the new landlord to meet the cost of priority catch-up repairs to the housing stock. In one case, the sum amounted to £17 million. That level of payment to a new landlord from public funds demands the scrutiny of the suitability of new landlords that the current provisions supply.
I am sure that I carry my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East with me when I say that it will be desirable to retain that feature of the legislation. I have had the opportunity to discuss at length outside the House many of the ideas that my hon. Friend has put forward not only in his speech this evening, but also in the many publications in his name.
He has made a very important contribution to the continuing debate upon the democratisation of housing and the spread of home ownership. I believe that the independence which comes from owning one's house has been a significant factor in the other important changes which have taken place in society in this country in the last 15 or 20 years.
I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate. I hope that he will agree that the proposals that he has put forward this evening in his new clause are only part of a wider agenda for housing. It would not be sensible to just pick and choose odd pieces from the jigsaw. While I believe that his ideas merit further serious consideration, I do not think that the deregulation Bill is the appropriate vehicle to achieve the objectives that he has in view. He should not use the Bill simply to include one important ingredient of his general proposals.
I suggest that my hon. Friend—I hope that he will be agreeable to this course of action—withdraws his new clause this evening and that we pursue his ideas outside the House. He can then work them into a more wide-ranging and properly constructed set of proposals which might be more appropriate to include in a Bill directed specifically at housing, rather than a general Bill about deregulation within which many of the essential features of the liberalisations that he wishes to bring about could not figure because they would be beyond the scope of the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate. I hope that we may be able to continue the debate

later when he may be successful in putting together some workable proposals which will achieve the laudable objectives that he has set out.

Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his comments. I shall be happy to withdraw the new clause on the basis of what has been said, but first I will comment briefly on the points raised during the debate.
I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). I think that he would agree that the multiple occupation case in Scarborough is very different from what is being discussed in the new clause, which relates specifically to council tenants choosing a new landlord. The Labour party said in one of its recent policy documents that the private rented sector badly needs a boost. But I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept that in the private rented sector there is no restriction whatever on one landlord passing a property to another landlord. It may occur on the death of a previous landlord, for example.
The new landlord does not have to be approved by the Housing Corporation. No checks have to be made on his financial viability, reputation or anything else. The security for the tenant lies in the tenancy agreement itself, not in anything relating to the individual who may or may not be the landlord at a particular moment in time. The hon. Gentleman should trust the judgment of the tenant who wants to choose a new landlord and look for security in the tenancy agreement itself.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I would consider that the hon. Gentleman's argument had a little more conviction if, when housing association or Housing Corporation tenants in Scotland and elsewhere wanted to choose their landlord, they were not deliberately barred from opting for a district council. The Government do not want to extend that choice to tenants. It is a bit much for the hon. Gentleman to pretend that the Conservatives support tenants' choice. We support tenants' right to choose their landlord, and we believe that if they want to choose the district council they should be allowed to do so.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the weight of evidence showing, I believe, that local authorities are among the worst landlords that exist. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has sent me information from a survey entitled, "Housing in Britain", which shows that between 1986 and 1993 the proportion of tenants dissatisfied with council renting rose from 11 per cent. to 13 per cent. whereas with private renting the proportion fell to 10 per cent. It is clear where the dissatisfaction lies.
The hon. Gentleman has only to read the most recent report of the local government ombudsman to discover that housing was the single biggest cause of complaints to local authorities. There were more than 5,000 complaints relating to council house management, repairs, mortgages, housing benefit, housing grants, and so on, and there are many references to failure to comply with legal requirements, failure to investigate issues properly, failure to take appropriate action, failure to provide adequate information, and so on. The direction in which people are heading is clear.
I took considerable heart from what the Minister said, and on the basis that we can look forward to a comprehensive housing Bill in the next Session of Parliament—I hope that what I have said both in the new


clause and elsewhere, such as in my pamphlet, may be included in such a Bill-I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4

STRIKING OFF OF NON-TRADING PRIVATE COMPANIES: GREAT BRITAIN

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 68, line 34, after 'if' insert
', at any time in the previous 3 months,'.
No. 64, in page 68 leave out lines 35 to 40 and insert—

'(a) changed its name,
(b) traded or otherwise carried on business,
(c) made a disposal for value of property or rights which, immediately before ceasing to trade or otherwise carry on business, it held for the purpose of disposal for gain in the normal course of trading or otherwise carrying on business, or
(d) engaged in any other activity, except one which is—


(i) necessary or expedient for the purpose of making an application under section 652A, or deciding whether to do so,
(ii) necessary or expedient for the purpose of concluding the affairs of the company,
(iii) necessary or expedient for the purpose of complying with any statutory requirement, or
(iv) specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a company shall not be treated as trading or otherwise carrying on business by virtue only of the fact that it makes a payment in respect of a liability incurred in the course of trading or otherwise carrying on business.'.
No. 65, in page 70, line 14, leave out '(c)' and insert '(d)'.
No. 66, in page 70, leave out lines 41 to 45 and insert—

'(i) changes its name,
(ii) trades or otherwise carries on business,
(iii) makes a disposal for value of any property or rights other than those which it was necessary or expedient for it to hold for the purpose of making, or proceeding with, an application under section 652A, or
(iv) engages in any other activity, except one to which subsection (6) applies.'.

No. 67, in page 71, line 16, at end insert—

'(6) This subsection applies to any activity which is—

(a) necessary or expedient for the purpose of making, or proceeding with, an application under section 652A,
(b) necessary or expedient for the purpose of concluding affairs of the company which are outstanding because of what has been necessary or expedient for the purpose of making, or proceeding with, such an application,
(c) necessary or expedient for the purpose of complying with any statutory requirement, or
(d) specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this subsection.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), a company shall not be treated as trading or otherwise carrying on business by virtue only of the fact that it makes a payment in respect of a liability incurred in the course of trading or otherwise carrying on business.'.

No. 68, in page 71, line 17, leave out from '652D.—(1)' to 'For' in line 30.
No. 70, in page 72, line 9, at end insert—
'( ) include power to make different provision for different cases or classes of case,'.
No. 69, in page 72, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert—

'(9) In sections 65213 and 652C. "disposal" includes part disposal.'.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Schedule 5

STRIKING OFF OF NON-TRADING PRIVATE COMPANIES: NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 75, line 3, after 'if' insert
', at any time in the previous 3 months,'.
No. 72, in page 75, leave out lines 4 to 8 and insert—

'(a) changed its name,
(b) traded or otherwise carried on business,
(c) made a disposal for value of property or rights which, immediately before ceasing to trade or otherwise carry on business, it held for the purpose of disposal for gain in the normal course of trading or otherwise carrying on business, or
(d) engaged in any other activity, except one which is—


(i) necessary or expedient for the purpose of making an application under Article 603A, or deciding whether to do so,
(ii) necessary or expedient for the purpose of concluding the affairs of the company,
(iii) necessary or expedient for the purpose of complying with any statutory requirement, or
(iv) specified for the purposes of this head by the Department by order made subject to negative resolution.

(1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a company shall not be treated as trading or otherwise carrying on business by virtue only of the fact that it makes a payment in respect of a liability incurred in the course of trading or otherwise carrying on business.'.
No. 73, in page 76, line 15, leave out '(c)' and insert '(d),.
No. 74, in page 76, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert—

'(i) changes its name,
(ii) trades or otherwise carries on business,
(iii) makes a disposal for value of any property or rights other than those which it was necessary or expedient for it to hold for the purpose of making, or proceeding with, an application under Article 603A, or
(iv) engages in any other activity, except one to which paragraph (6) applies.'.

No. 75, in page 77, line 9, at end insert—

'(6) This paragraph applies to any activity which is—

(a) necessary or expedient for the purpose of making, or proceeding with, an application under Article 603A,
(b) necessary or expedient for the purpose of concluding affairs of the company which are outstanding because of what has been necessary or expedient for the purpose of making, or proceeding with, such an application,
(c) necessary or expedient for the purpose of complying with any statutory requirement, or
(d) specified for the purposes of this paragraph by the Department by order made subject to negative resolution.

(7) For the purposes of paragraph (4)(a), a company shall not be treated as trading or otherwise carrying on business by virtue only of the fact that it makes a payment in respect of a liability incurred in the course of trading or otherwise carrying on business.'.

No. 76, in page 77, line 11, leave out from '603D.-(l)' to 'For' in line 22.
No. 77, in page 77, leave out lines 44 to 47 and insert—
'(7) In Articles 603B and 603C, "disposal" includes part disposal.'.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Clause 14

BUILDING SOCIETIES: CLASS 1 AND 2 ADVANCED-THIRD PARTY MORTGAGES

Amendment made: No. 78, in page 16, line 37, leave out 'by someone other than' and insert 'otherwise than by'. —[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Clause 16

BARS IN LICENSED PREMISES IN ENGLAND AND WALES: CHILDREN'S CERTIFICATES

Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 18, line 21, at end insert
'or subsection (3AA) of this section applies.
(3AA) This subsection applies where—

(a) the person under fourteen, or a person in whose company he is, is consuming a meal purchased before the certificate ceased to be operational, and
(b) no more than thirty minutes have elapsed since the certificate ceased to be operational.'.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: Government amendment No. 85.
No. 10, in schedule 6, page 81, line 11, after 'police', insert 'or any other person'.
No. 11, in page 81, line 22, after 'police', insert 'or any other person'.
No. 14, in page 81, line 25, after 'police', insert
'or the person making the application, as the case may be,'.
Government amendment No. 84.

Mr. Sainsbury: Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 fulfil an undertaking given in Committee. Under the children's certificate provisions as they stand, every certificate will cease to be operational at some predetermined time. That will normally be 9 o'clock in the evening, but it may be earlier or later in an individual case. Immediately a children's certificate has ceased to be operational, the provisions of section 168 of the Licensing Act 1964—under which it is a criminal offence for the licensee to allow, or anyone else to cause or procure, a young person under the age of 14 to be in a bar in licensed premises during permitted hours—automatically resume their application to the bar concerned.
The absolute nature of the "guillotine" thus imposed could cause problems for families with young children to whom a meal has been served in a bar in which a children's certificate was in force, shortly before the certificate ceased to be operational. Such a family might have insufficient time to complete their meal comfortably before they had to leave the bar so that neither they nor the licensee would be committing a criminal offence. Hon. Members with children and grandchildren will know that they cannot always be persuaded to eat up quickly. The provision would therefore seem unreasonable.
The amendment therefore makes provision for a period of up to 30 minutes eating-up time immediately after the children's certificate has ceased to be operational. That will apply only for the purpose of allowing a young person under 14, or the adult in whose company he or she is, to consume a meal purchased before the certificate ceased to be operational. The amendment offers a sensible solution to a minor practical problem identified during the passage of the Bill and I commend it to the House.
Amendment No. 85 fulfils the undertaking given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) in Committee. It will require licensing justices who refuse to grant a children's certificate to give the unsuccessful applicant a written explanation of their reasons for refusing the application. That will, I am sure, introduce a greater element of transparency and openness into decision making in that context. It would also give unsuccessful applicants a better opportunity to consider, with their legal adviser as necessary, whether they have good grounds on which to exercise their right, for which the Bill already makes provision, to appeal to the Crown court against a justices' decision, or perhaps even to seek to have it reviewed in the High Court. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Fatchett: I welcome the Minister's words on amendments Nos. 83 and 85 and I am grateful to him for carrying out the commitments that were given in Committee. I shall not detain the House for any great length of time at this stage. However, the amendments in my name—Nos. 10, 11 and 14—raised an especial point that came up in Committee, relating to the duration of children's certificates and the locus of various parties to appear before the licensing justices. I am advised that, despite the assurance given to me by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs the Bill as currently drafted would allow only an officer of the police and not any other person to appear and therefore would not be consistent with other legislation dealing with licences in that area. My amendments would therefore add "any other person", which I understand would be consistent with previous licensing legislation.
I do not intend to push the point much further at this stage. I believe that there is agreement between me and the Minister in terms of locus and if the Minister looks at the words and the commitments given by his colleague the Under-Secretary of State he will see that. Before the Bill goes to another place, may I ask the Minister to have another look at my amendments to see whether they are technically necessary? Perhaps he would write to reassure me on that point.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to confirm that I shall look carefully at what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said and I shall write to him. I hope that I will be able to reassure him that what is proposed in the Bill is consistent with other aspects of licensing legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6

CHILDREN'S CERTIFICATES: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 85, in page 80, line 25, at end insert—

'Refusal

2A. Where licensing justices refuse an application for a children's certificate, they shall specify their reasons in writing to the applicant.'.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Clause 17

SUNDAY OPENING OF CERTAIN LICENSED PREMISES IN SCOTLAND

Mr. Phil Gallie: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 19, leave out lines 25 to 35.
The amendment is intended to delete clause 17 and refers basically to the situation in Scotland where off-sales are not permitted on a Sunday. The amendment, by deleting clause 17, retains that restriction, which dates back to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. It is important to many people in Scotland that the situation is maintained and that Sunday represents, in some respects, a day apart from others. I supported the recent moves in England to introduce supermarket and other shop opening for limited hours on Sunday in a way that brought English law into line with Scots law. We have had that facility for many years in Scotland and, to an extent, it has been well used. If anything, it has encouraged family participation in the shopping scenario at weekends.
Before giving my support to the reform of Sunday trading in England, I spent some time in the supermarkets in my constituency before the votes on the subject. I found that there was absolutely no problem arising from the fact that they had to shut off the licensing facilities on Sunday. The public accepted that and there was no great demand for such sales. It was widely accepted that that, in part, made Sunday different. When I spoke to those who ran town centre off-licences, they again said that there was no demand.
Somewhere along the line, something has changed and I am not sure why. As far as I can detect, there has been no real lobby in Scotland for that relaxation. I am aware that a small pressure group has raised the issue, but I feel that it is not a major issue of the day in the towns and villages of Scotland. I welcome the Bill, but I believe that clause 17 is neither necessary nor desirable.
My concerns relate to under-age drinking and, in part, to those unfortunates who suffer from alcoholism. In terms of under-age drinking, I feel that there is no real problem with off-sales from pubs and hotels and, to an extent, from the small off-licences. However, when liquor gets on to the streets, much of it comes from the major stores and the supermarkets. That is not deliberate; in many instances, there is no direct sale to young people. It comes about through volume trade in the larger stores and through secondary purchases—youngsters who encourage others to buy drink for them. Problems arise, especially on Fridays and Saturdays, when youngsters take drink on to the streets and into the parks. Scots, at least, should expect one day in the week when that does not happen. Sunday should be maintained as it is.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore proposing that pubs and hotels in Scotland should not be allowed to serve drink to be consumed off the premises, as well as proposing that off-licences should not be opened? What he suggests implies that.

Mr. Gallie: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my words a moment ago, he would have heard me say that the problems did not exist with the pubs and the hotels. The problems exist with the volume sales in the supermarkets, as I remarked.
Under-age drinking is one thing the lot of the alcoholic,

which must also be considered, is another. There is a major problem here for the unfortunate individuals who drink whatever they can get their hands on. We see that with the sale of cheap, high-alcohol lagers, with fortified wines and, to an extent, with new drinks such as Buckfast. To open up the off-licences on Sunday would offer another temptation, present another problem, for people who suffer from that disease.
By going down that line, we are pushing at an open door. We have relaxed the law on Sunday trading and there is a constant push by the major superstores to seek further advantage. The time has come to say that enough is enough.

Mr. George Kynoch: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gallie: No, I must be fairly brief. I do not have time.
We should look at our Christian heritage and our culture. We should not throw that away altogether. In Scotland, especially in the islands, we have managed to preserve Sundays. If we accept clause 17, we shall impose something on the people of Scotland which they do not want. I ask the House to support the amendment and, therefore, to reject clause 17.

Mr. George Robertson: It is a rare event for me to follow the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and support his amendment, although I do not necessarily accept every item in the arguments that he deployed this evening. It is all the stranger since, in the local elections last week, not many people supported the hon. Gentleman, given the loss of the three regional seats in the Ayr constituency. I fear that that is a severe warning for the future.

Mr. Peter Luff: Cheap.

Mr. Robertson: I would say in answer to that that it is extremely expensive for the hon. Member for Ayr, whose wafer-thin majority is certainly no longer there to protect him.
This is an important issue. In Committee, the Minister for Industry, who has departed, said;
I recognise that there is genuine concern in Scotland about the measure."—[Official Report. Standing Committee F, 8 March 1994; c. 429.]
One must ask why the measure is in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, in which context it sits uneasily. It was not in the Conservative manifesto in Scotland at the election two years ago, and there has been little or no consultation about it with the public at large and little or no warning that it would appear in such a measure in this Parliament. As the hon. Member for Ayr pointed out, there is a slight suspicion that it is in response to a specific lobby that the House is being asked to legislate on this.
I must make it clear at the beginning of my remarks that for the Opposition—as, indeed, I believe for the Government—there will be a completely free vote when the amendment is pressed to a Division. My hon. Friends will not—I underline this—be asked to support the hon. Member for Ayr as he has simply tabled the amendment in order to facilitate the debate and to get the Government off the procedural hook on which they found themselves in the Standing Committee. I hope that my hon. Friends will


listen to the argument that I shall deploy and, at the end of the debate, vote in favour of the hon. Gentleman's amendment and delete clause 17 from the Bill.
The law in Scotland was comprehensively changed by Parliament in 1976 following the Clayson committee report. Although the Clayson committee recommended that off-licences should be open on a Sunday, Parliament, in its wisdom in 1976 decided that that was one recommendation that it would not accept—1976 is a long time ago.
Parliament had another opportunity to consider in some detail the form of the measure that we are talking about this evening. In 1990, when the Government introduced the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, there was another opportunity to debate the measure, but once again Parliament—this is not a partisan point because opinion differed across the board, and I shall come to that in a moment—decided that there should be no change to the law as it was established in 1976. We are talking about a period of three years between Parliament making a definitive decision—it was a definitive decision—not to change the law and the Government including a clause in this Bill to change it completely.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the provision in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill was withdrawn in 1990 owing to lack of parliamentary time, not for any other reason?

Mr. Robertson: On Second Reading in 1990, the Minister said that a great deal of time would be spent in Committee but it was not—the matter was dispensed with. Indeed, the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—the latter is here this evening—spoke against that provision on Second Reading.
Only three years later, the Government have introduced a comprehensive change to the law based on a single clause put into wholly inappropriate legislation. I suggest that the case that was put forward in 1990 for retaining the difference between the Scottish law and the situation in England remains as valid now as it was then. Our more liberal regime in Scotland does not need any alteration, and it should not be altered until there has been a review of the way in which it has operated up to now.
Unlike the hon. Member for Ayr, I am not articulating a keep Sunday special argument in this debate, although I recognise that some who will follow my advice tonight will do so for that precise reason. Hon. Members have been written to by the Church of Scotland's board of social responsibility, which has expressed a strong view that we should oppose the Government's proposal. I could hardly say that, since earlier this evening I voted for horse racing to take place on Sunday, and I did so consciously and consistent with all my views.
10.30 pm
I do not make this recommendation this evening because I hold illiberal views on the licensing laws in Scotland. I think that the liberalisation of the law in Scotland has been beneficial. It has worked well and has eliminated some of the anti-social consequences of the pre-existing legislation. Even if I held to those arguments, the reality is that people who want to buy alcohol to consume in their own home in Scotland can do so.

Although off-licences are not permitted to open for very good reasons, Parliament in 1990 and 1976 laid forth that pubs and hotels can sell alcohol.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that anybody who wants to buy alcohol for consumption on Sunday in his own home can buy it from a pub, hotel or similar establishment, but the cost of the alcohol is much higher than it is in a supermarket. People can shop in a supermarket on Sunday, but when they reach the wine section the shutters are down. Does not the hon. Gentleman see an inconsistency there? Does he not accept that those who want to keep Sunday special do not have to buy their alcohol on Sunday if they do not wish to?

Mr. Robertson: First, I was not arguing for the keep Sunday special campaign in general terms in any event. Parliament decided in 1976 and in 1990 that the difference between pubs and hotels and off-licences is that there is a greater degree of control in the sale of alcohol from the licensed premises. That is distinct from the level of control that was anticipated then and that we have seen since then in off-licences and in licensed grocers. There is a major distinction. Yes, there is a price to pay. If people want to buy alcohol, they can do so, but they do so in regulated circumstances which perhaps prevent some of the excesses that were anticipated when the law was last looked at.
I ask the House to resist the change in the law because its consequences have simply not been thought through in relation to the peace and quiet of many citizens in Scotland today. I go back to some of the wise words which were expressed in 1990. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) in his speech in the Standing Committee brought together a number of sentiments that are worth repeating.
The hon. Member for Dumfries, who was not a Minister at the time, said on Second Reading:
The provision allowing alcohol to be available at off-licences on Sundays will make control that much harder."—[Official Report, 12 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 198.]
The hon. Gentleman, who is not here this evening, is now a Scottish Office Minister. Although there is a free vote, there is no doubt some informal arrangement among those on the Government Front Bench which the Minister will explain.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North is here this evening and he may well speak for himself. I do not know whether he has changed his mind or whether he is still with us.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Robertson: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of his words in 1990 before he intervenes.
Like other hon. Members, I am concerned about supermarkets and off-licences and I hope that we can deal in detail with them in Committee."—[Official Report, 12 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 206.]

Mr. Walker: I shall be brief. For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I have changed my mind and I hope to explain why.

Mr. Robertson: It will be interesting to hear why the hon. Gentleman has changed his mind. He is a man of independent spirit on some occasions and we shall see whether he took an independent decision or he has changed his mind in response to any particular lobbying. I have quoted what he said in the previous debate.
In 1990, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, the right and learned hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said eventually that the opposition was so great that the Government would not pursue the matter. He has moved on to greater things in another area, and who knows what decision he will make this evening?
I believe that the law should not be changed until there has been a review of three specific points. I am not implacably opposed to the measure on principle, if on three grounds the Government can prove their case. First, some conclusions of the open-air drinking experimental byelaws upon which the Government embarked two years ago must be published and discussed. The Governme nt rightly tested the idea of a ban on open-air drinking in the centres of Motherwell, Dundee and Galashiels. It was an extremely good experiment. The Government resisted allowing any other local authority in Scotland to adopt such byelaws, even though there was considerable demand for them to do so, until the experiment had been concluded.
The Government said that the experiment could be concluded only after a sensibly long period. That period apparently has finished, but the Government have not yet published the outcome of the experiment. We should not contemplate in one clause in one Bill a substantial change in the law when the experiment that the Government themselves set up has not yet had a chance to prove itself one way or another.
The reality today is that in so many housing estates across Scotland open-air drinking is becoming the norm rather than the exception. All Members of Parliament have found that people complain bitterly about it. The problem is not confined to the centres of towns. In many cases, it is a problem on peripheral housing estates.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I moved amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill on open-air drinking and under-age drinking? I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not here to support me when I moved those amendments.

Mr. Robertson: I understand that the Government refused to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendments. We acknowledge that there is a demand for implementation of the byelaws in a large number of towns throughout Scotland. The Government have an experiment in place which they say we must allow to finish. They say that the conclusions must be published before they will allow such byelaws to be implemented. Surely to goodness the Government should not legislate until they have the results of the experiment, have published them and have had them debated. I firmly believe that that is part and parcel of the subject that we are discussing today.
The reality is that a large number of youngsters purchase alcohol, or have alcohol purchased for them, in off-licences and consume it in the streets round about. Scottish Take Home News is published as a supplement to the Scottish Licensed Trade News. It is a worthwhile publication which I have received for many years. It has a front-page headline this week about Smugglers Off Sales in Saltcoats. I am not certain whether any of my hon. Friends from Cunninghame are here this evening.
The headline is:
Licensee survives local authority supervision bid. Council hits at off-sales".
The story is of the licensee of an off-licence in Saltcoats

who almost lost her licence as a consequence of under-age drinking outside the premises. The article says that Mrs. Eileen Scott, the proprietor of the Smugglers off-licence
who had previously been fined £200 for selling drink to under-agers, says she's 'paranoid' about youngsters around her shop who still attempt to buy alcohol and who regularly bribe or threaten older people to buy it for them.
The article goes on:
Mrs. Scott is angry at the older men who buy alcohol for youngsters. She claims that some unemployed men in the area buy alcohol for under-age drinkers for £1.
'We have been weeding it out, but it is difficult when somebody is left in the shop and gives the alcohol to others. I have been out in the street chasing children up town and phoning the police if kids are loitering with intent'.
That is only example, but it is part and parcel of the picture across Scotland.
The second matter that needs to be reviewed before such a change in the law is contemplated is the anomaly created by the fact that, under the law, people under 18 are not allowed to buy alcohol but are allowed to consume it, even on the streets. Again, the reality is that it is all too easy, even where the holder of the off-licence is law-abiding, for such individuals to purchase alcohol. Some of the drink in question is of very high strength. It includes spirits and the famous Buckfast fortified wine. It includes also new exotic beers with alcohol strengths of 9 to 11 per cent.—very close to the strength of wine—many of which are brewed in Scotland. They are very powerful, especially in some of the lethal cocktails that are consumed today.
There is something at least anomalous, and perhaps daft, about a situation in which it can be a serious criminal offence for an off-licensee to sell alcohol to, or for an adult to buy alcohol for, youngsters but those youngsters may consume it legally, even if they are causing a major problem for the surrounding area. Recently I spoke to a policeman who strongly supported the campaign on this subject in which I was involved. He said that on many occasions he had taken alcohol from youngsters and poured it down a drain but worried that, in taking away other people's property, he was himself committing a criminal offence in the course of his public service. In that respect the law is in need of careful examination in advance of any change.
The third ground for a review before legislation is passed relates to the need for an investigation by the Scottish Office into the number of off-licences that are granted. We are given the easy comparison between England and Wales, where off-licences are open on Sunday, and Scotland where, anomalously, they are not. Tradition and culture in England and Wales are, I submit, almost completely different from those in Scotland. There is a tradition of very small licensed grocers who are willing and able to sell alcohol at any time of the day or night. I seriously believe that the Government must examine carefully the facility with which grocers can secure licences and must consider whether a tough enough regime has been put in place.
As the Department of Trade and Industry has conceded, this is an important subject that gives rise to anxiety. We have an obligation to people who have some right to respite from a plague that afflicts so many for six out of every seven days. If that plague could be dealt with effectively in some other way, if the Government have a proposal in mind, if they carry out a review of the three sectors that I have suggested should be investigated and if they can


satisfy us that the citizens on whose behalf we are complaining can be made content, they might, with some judiciousness, bring forward legislative change.
We are embarking on the change much too hurriedly, without sufficient examination. In doing so we do a disservice to the constituents we serve. Therefore, I ask my hon Friends to support the amendment and to eliminate clause 17.

Mr. Bill Walker: I rise to oppose the amendment and I shall tell the House why.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) properly drew attention to the fact that, on Second Reading of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1985, I spoke against. Since then I have conducted some inquiries.
The hon. Member for Hamilton drew attention to the experiment carried out in Dundee. As a result of my inquiries into that experiment I tabled two amendments at the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. My objective was to draw attention to the problem, which is not opening licensed premises, but drinking in open spaces around such premises, as the hon. Gentleman said, and—what is worse —under-age drinking.
Under-age drinking should be a criminal offence—not merely selling alcohol to people who are under age—and, more importantly, the police should have powers to deal with that offence on the spot. We are attempting to deal with a social problem and to do so by the wrong mechanism. I can explain why it is wrong with my hand on my heart because I am teetotal, so it does not matter to me what the licensing laws are.
I am concerned with my constituents, as is the hon. Member for Hamilton. Why should the distillery shops in my constituency not be able to sell their products to the many thousands of visitors who come to my constituency and who visit the distilleries? We quite properly want all those overseas visitors to acquire a taste for Scotch whisky and to buy it in quantities—as many of them do, but we want many more to do so. With exports at £2,000 million it is very important that our licensing structure recognises the importance of the Scotch whisky industry to the Scottish economy. It is vital that we deal with that narrow, but important, aspect.
It is also true to say that instead of banning things we should be liberalising, so that we can deal with the social problems, which do exist. If hon. Members had been seriously interested in the problem I would have hoped to see many more of them here. A number of hon. Members are present and I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon (Mr. McKelvey), who supported me in my efforts to get the Government to deal with the real problem—a problem that exists on other days—which is people drinking in public places.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that the byelaw procedures would be encouraged—I hoped that the hon. Member for Hamilton would recognise that. I am paraphrasing, but my hon. Friend told me that the experiments had been encouraging, although there had been problems, to which I and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) drew attention during the debate on my amendments. If an area is outlined and detailed and alcohol consumption is banned, there is a danger of moving the problem somewhere else.
In his reply to the debate on my amendments my hon. Friend the Minister said that other areas could also be designated and that the Government would look kindly on that. That is part of the method of dealing with the problem, but I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton that we should have legislation that addresses the real problem—anti-social drinking at whatever age by anyone. That is no reason for not allowing the off-licences, which quite properly are in competition—I am a great believer in competition—to open on Sundays.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and I am probably as good a Christian as he is—at least I hope I am. I try very hard, but as with many other things, one is never as good as one would like to be. I take the view that Sunday is a day when I want to do the things that I enjoy. If I enjoy going to church, that is fine. If I enjoy doing other things, that is also fine, but I have never seen Sunday as a day on which I want to prevent others from doing what they enjoy.
I have always thought that, in Scotland, Sunday is the day when we enjoy our family life and get together. Although most of my family are teetotal, my brothers and sisters have inherited the fine Scottish habit of consuming a wee dram. They often do that on Sundays and I have never noticed any adverse effects. If they were to run out, they would want to go out and get supplies, particularly when they have barbecues on Sundays.
We should look seriously at the real problems and not try to prevent drinking through the mechanism of this legislation.

Mr. Maxton: This debate is creating some very strange alliances across the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was supporting the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and I am about to support the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and, presumably, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
There have been very few occasions on which I have been in alliance with the hon. Member for Tayside, North. I have been convinced of the arguments for opening off-licences on Sundays, particularly in supermarkets, but a strange anomaly developed, which the hon. Member for Ayr did not take into account. Supermarkets were opening illegally in England, but were able to sell drink from their off-licence departments yet no action was taken against them whereas in Scotland supermarkets were opening perfectly legally—it was within the law for them to do so —but their off-licences were closed.
Although Scots were able to go into supermarkets and buy what they wanted perfectly legally, they could not buy drink as part of what was often their weekly shopping. My wife often does a full weekly shop in Safeway on a Sunday afternoon. Of course, she cannot buy a bottle of sherry, whisky or wine along with the rest of the shopping. That is absurd. It is equally absurd that hotels and pubs are perfectly able to sell drink for consumption outside their premises, while supermarkets and off-licences which may be just a couple of doors down the street from the pub or hotel cannot sell it.
As the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside pointed out, when people have to go into a pub or hotel to buy their drink, they pay considerably more.
It seems to me that the argument of both the hon. Member for Ayr and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton was about not selling drink for off-licence


purposes in Scotland so that people could not drink outside or anywhere else. That is not an argument for closing off-licences and leaving pubs and hotels open.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: Does my hon. Friend have information on the amount of alcohol sold for consumption outside pubs on Sundays? What would the figures be if alcohol now became available in off-licences as well? Would not there be a tremendous increase in the amount of alcohol sold once it became available in the other outlets?

Mr. Maxton: I am not sure that that would be so. I openly admit that I have no figures, but I doubt whether my hon. Friend has, either. If he can produce figures to prove his point, that is fair enough, but I doubt whether he can.
I accept the arguments which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton made against outside drinking and tighter controls on under-age drinking and off-licences generally and I should like to see the review that he suggests. However, those arguments apply for the six days a week on which off-licences are now open and it would not make an enormous difference if they were also open on Sundays. So although his arguments are legitimate, they are not necessarily against keeping the clause in the Bill.

Mr. George Robertson: I welcome the remarks by my hon. Friend and distinguished constituent. But are not the products sold by pubs and hotels, which can sell on the seventh day of the week, different? Although most pubs and hotels are entitled to sell alcohol, they are wary and usually do not sell Buckfast fortified wine and some other products that seem to be available in licensed grocers, with only one destination. Although I am asking for a review because a change in the law is proposed, many people who live in close proximity to off-licences and licensed grocers have at least some relief from the aggravation that they suffer on one day out of the seven.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend has made his point but it is not an argument against opening off-licences on Sundays. I should have been happy to accept an amendment that would allow the opening of off-licences only in supermarkets. I put forward the idea as a possible way to deal with the problem but it was not widely accepted by other Opposition Members. It would have been a way to deal with smaller off-licences, but it was not suggested that I should table such an amendment.
I have tabled a new clause, which has not yet been debated, on putting fluoride into water in Scotland. The only argument that has been put to me against my new clause is that public opinion in Scotland is against putting fluoride into water. Evidence from all opinion polls on this issue in Scotland shows that an overwhelming majority of Scottish people favour opening off-licences in Scotland.
Reluctantly, therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton is my Member of Parliament, I shall be in the opposite Lobby to him tonight, voting against the amendment.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has made a good suggestion in a private conversation here in the Chamber—that more such matters

should be examined by the licensing board, which consists of men and women who live in the community and know the problems close at hand.
United Distillers and Tennents breweries are in my constituency. They are both excellent employers and I want no harm done to their sales. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that they would like to buy a bottle of wine in a supermarket on a Sunday because they have run short and are having friends for dinner. But in some parts of my constituency shopping facilities have housing above them, and to enter the housing one has to go through a door situated in the centre of the shops. Because of the terrible weather that we have in Glasgow, when young people and people over a certain age buy their carry-outs and cans of super lager it is natural for them to consume them in the close mouth. It is not a question of saying, "Keep the Sabbath holy", but at least those tenants will have one day a week with a bit of peace and quiet.
11 pm
That brings me back to the argument about Sunday opening. No one ever gave a thought to the fact that most of our major cities in Scotland have tenement property, and that people in such property are being annoyed on a Sunday by drinkers urinating in the close mouth. Sometimes, because of the behaviour of those drinkers, people are ashamed to invite their friends and relatives to visit them. If they want to meet them, they do so in the town and elsewhere.
I recognise that perhaps that problem does not exist in a big supermarket complex that has received all the considerations of the planning committee and the advice of the planning officials, and where it is away from built-up areas. People who go to a supermarket to buy alcohol usually go there by car. They are not drinking and driving; they buy the alcohol, put it in the boot of the car and go home. But a few hardened drinkers gather in little congregations all over my constituency—sometimes around schools. They call them "garden parties". In fact, if we have good weather, there they are with their cans of super lager. Quite frankly, they demean the area.
If we said that we should undertake a review of under-age drinking and of the people who are abusing alcohol, it still would not address the problem, but it would go some way to doing so if we gave the local licensing authorities a chance to say, "This is an application for a licence for Sunday opening in a built-up area. What do the neighbours have to say?" The neighbours could then go to the licensing committee and say, "It is all very well for someone living in the leafy suburbs, but we live next to multi-storey flats; the off-licence is at the bottom and people will be hanging around the lifts after they have bought a drink and annoying women and elderly people."
We must admit that we are living in a society in which more and more of our aged citizens are being frightened. It is, perhaps, not the danger that they are in but the danger that they perceive themselves to be in. That adds to their insecurity. I recognise that it is a serious problem.
Are we supporting the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)? I pay him the compliment of saying that there is a large supermarket in the centre of the town of Ayr with a big notice telling everyone to campaign and lobby him —it uses his name—to say that the drinking laws should be changed in favour of the supermarkets. I believe that his amendment gives some consideration to his constituents and many other people who feel that, if one wants to get a


carry-out—that is what it is called in Glasgow; if one wants to buy some products from the off-licence, it is called "getting your carry-out"—one can do it six days a weeks.

Mr. David Jamieson: It is the same in Plymouth.

Mr. Martin: Perhaps it is the same in Plymouth; I do not know. It can be done. I know that, when we try to control the sale of alcohol, we find ourselves involved in all sorts of ridiculous legislation. We must consider those who want a wee bit of peace and quiet on a Sunday.

Mr. Galbraith: I fear that I shall develop a reputation as a killjoy, which would amaze some former colleagues from my previous incarnation. I support the amendment —for a number of reasons, but first on the basis of the general principle that this is not the way in which to handle Scottish legislation that significantly affects the nature of Scottish society. I think that even my hon. Friends—and any Conservative Members who support Sunday opening for off licences—ought to oppose this method of introducing an important piece of Scottish legislation that should have been subject to wide consultation, considered in the Scottish Grand Committee and only then introduced in the House. It is premature and wrong.

Mr. Brian Wilson: May I remind my hon. Friend that the Government introduced the proposal in the considered setting of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, enacted in 1990, but it was rejected by a Scottish Committee and went no further? They are now trying to reintroduce it in a particularly back-door way.

Mr. Galbraith: I agree. Once again Scottish legislation has been tacked on to a United Kingdom Bill at an inappropriate time, and I hope that my hon. Friends who favour Sunday opening for off-licences will none the less oppose it on that basis.
A number of matters must be considered. I make no apology for again using the "Keep Sunday Special" argument, but it need not be advanced from a Christian perspective; it can be advanced from the perspective of a society in which, for non-Christian reasons, it is considered appropriate to set aside one day when people can have a bit of peace and quiet and not be bothered by the run-of-the-mill hassles of everyday life. That is an important requirement that is at the heart of Scottish culture and society, and we should not throw it away without further consideration.
The measure will not only affect supermarkets—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has agreed that the position may differ there—or off-licences; it will affect licensed grocers. Together, the two constitute a problem. Licensed grocers often operate on large housing estates that may be areas of deprivation, trouble and hooliganism; they can open at 8 am on Sundays and start selling huge ranges of cheap alcohol. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart suggested that that was no different from pubs being open, but it is. Pubs are generally open for people to consume alcohol on the premises. I do not know the figures, but it must represent at least 95 per cent. of Sunday sales. They do not have a wide range, and alcohol is expensive. People do not

generally come out of pubs with large amounts; it is drunk on the premises. That does not apply to licensed grocers, which are poorly regulated and sell other products.
Off-licences, too, are a problem in my constituency. I receive numerous complaints about off-licences' opening at 8 am, when queues of customers—often from the outer parts of my constituency—have already formed, and corner boys hang around disturbing the neighbourhood. Surely we can allow local residents one day on which they will not be troubled in such a way; surely that is not too much to ask. It is all very well for those of us like myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart who disappear elsewhere at weekends, but many others find it a disturbing time, and I hope that we can consider them.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) claims that this can all be dealt with through byelaws banning open-air drinking. I caution hon. Members against that argument. I have no doubt that such measures would deal with the problem to some extent, and I hope that my local authorities will introduce them soon—I have already spoken to them—but we should not be deceived into believing that they would effectively eliminate it.
Let us remember that the experiment was carried out in three areas. It is in the nature of experiments that they change things and the results of an experiment are always preferable to what happens when the subsequent legislation is introduced because the police and the shopkeepers are on their toes during an experiment and everyone involved is engaged in keeping the areas under a microscope. The results are not so good once the experiment involves the general population.
The issues should be considered fully before any decision is taken. The Government are remiss in tagging this proposal on to a United Kingdom Bill. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friends will oppose clause 17 and accept amendment No. 86.

Mr. Galloway: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on the sincere and powerful way in which he moved the amendment. The last time I agreed with him in public was in George square in Glasgow when we shared a platform during the "Save the Whale" demonstration.
I deal first with the allegation made in a number of speeches by Labour and Conservative Members that the amendment is intended to stop people in Scotland having a whale of a time on Sunday. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) has just said that it is not necessary to sign up to the Keep Sunday Special campaign to accept that there is a certain rhythm to life on these islands, that Sunday has been a different kind of day from the rest and that many people like it and want to keep it that way, especially with regard to licensing hours. I am a lower case "keep Sunday special" man: I do not think that I fit easily the caricature of the Sabbatarian killjoy, and I am certainly not arguing from that standpoint.
As in Committee, I am tonight arguing from the standpoint that has been identified by a number of my hon. Friends. The first argument that I hope the serried ranks of my colleagues behind me will find persuasive is that we are debating what is, in effect, a constitutional outrage. The Government are trying to slip in a proposal that would materially change the rhythm of Scottish life and they are trying to do so by means of a little clause added on to a controversial United Kingdom Bill, which has absolutely nothing to do with when and where people in Scotland can and should consume alcohol. Indeed, it was voted on by a


Committee where the majority was provided by English Members of Parliament who knew nothing about the arguments but were whipped to support the legislation.
If such a change is to be considered, there should be full public consultation in Scotland involving Scottish Members on a Scottish Committee. I should prefer consideration to take place in a Scottish Parliament, but, if it is to take place before there is such a thing—before the next election—it should be done properly after an informed debate in Scotland, not by this subterfuge.
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I caution the Minister to be very careful in the current climate about inadvertently misleading the House. It cannot be true that the only reason why the proposal was withdrawn in 1990 was the lack of parliamentary time. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) cited the then Secretary of State's assertion that it was to be withdrawn under fire from all sides in an appropriate place—a Scottish Committee. If it is to be reintroduced, that is where it should happen. That is the first argument against the clause.
11.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) talked about unusual alliances, but I find myself in the usual position of disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in the nicest possible way. We are not talking about the Oddbins, pukka, posh wine shop in the Elysian fields of Hamilton where he lives—he has fought for those fields over the years—or, for that matter, in Byres road in my constituency. We are not talking about the person who decides to have a barbecue on a nice day and rolls up to Oddbins in the west end to stock up on Chablis or Chateauneuf du Pape.
We are talking about what is effectively a super-lager lout's charter. The problem is not in Hamilton's Elysian fields or in Byres road; the problem is in the peripheral housing estates—the deserts with windows—which were constructed by ill-advised Governments and councils in the past. People are imprisoned on those housing estates, and at the moment they have one day's relief from the problem which has been identified in the House this evening but which is worth repeating. I refer to the problem of the licensed grocery which, all too often, is owned by a shopkeeper who is not sufficiently alert to the fine print of the licensing laws—and not only the licensing laws, but this is not the place to develop that argument.
We are not talking about the posh Oddbins in the west end of Glasgow, but about barbed-wired, iron-barred licensed grocery stores in housing estates. They are usually in a parade of shops with, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) correctly said, people living above them and in the surrounding houses and tenement buildings. Those people have to go to the shops to buy their milk, bread and newspapers on Sundays. If this measure is passed, they will have to run the gauntlet —as they do on the other six days of the week—

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galloway: I will give way in a moment.
They will have to run the gauntlet of corner boys and louts who are drinking their high-octane, super-charged

super-lager and cheap wine. That is the social problem that we are dealing with. We simply ask: why should people who are already suffering that six days a week, have to suffer it on a seventh day?

Mr. O'Neill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galloway: I will give way in a moment.
Why should they suffer that, especially when there has been no proper debate about the matter in Scotland and the measure is not being taken in the full light of informed public opinion?

Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I did not mean to interrupt him, but I thought that he would forget that I wanted to intervene.
I have followed his argument very carefully. The abuse which he mapped out very dramatically over the six days seems to be a result of the working of the existing licensing codes in granting licences to these grocers' shops. The answer to the problem which he has identified so accurately is to prevent the grocers from being given licences in the first place; or, alternatively, to police them far more fiercely than they are at present.
It is quite clear that there are alternative retail outlets which could provide alcoholic beverages if necessary. The sale of alcohol in this manner is wholly inappropriate in particular areas. My hon. Friend should be attacking that problem, not the Bill.

Mr. Galloway: Can my hon. Friend see that if we cannot prevent this behaviour six days a week, we have little chance of preventing it seven days a week? I am well aware that, to some extent, the current law is not being implemented properly. But we will not solve that problem by visiting it upon people on a seventh day.
People ask me: if these abuses are occurring outside off-licences, why cannot people telephone the police? In Scotstoun in my constituency if people telephone the police on a Friday or Saturday to say that there is a lout urinating outside an off-licence, they will be lucky if the police arrive the next day. There are not enough police in the areas that I am talking about. When I was in Newton Mearns the other day, I saw plenty of police on patrol, but there do not seem to be quite so many police around when one needs them on the housing estates that we are talking about. It involves a different class of criminal.
The women, children and others who have to run that gauntlet and walk past the lout with the bottle of cheap sherry in one hand, who is urinating, shouting abuse and indulging in all the other anti-social behaviour that takes place outside licensed grocers and off-licences, are saying to us, "Solve the problem for the other six days a week before you try to force it down our throats on the seventh day."
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton carefully set out the improvements and reforms that we would like to be made before we would agree to allowing alcohol to be sold on the seventh day. If the Government said that they had proposals to deal with the abuses and problems, and if they said it persuasively enough for us to believe them, no doubt we would drop our objection. Unlike the hon. Member for Ayr, we do not oppose in principle selling drink on a Sunday.
We are mounting the case, persuasively, I hope, that our people—working-class people in Labour constituencies —are those worst affected by the problems. We shall not


solve the problems by introducing a seventh day in the week on which they will be allowed to get worse. On behalf of those people, and in support of the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I, too, have much sympathy with the amendment and I shall certainly support it. However, I was interested to discover that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is not making any alternative suggestions. I am not sure how the Minister will react to his proposal, but I hope that it will be favourably.
I am sorry that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and myself was not selected for debate, because we suggested that the opening of off-licences on Sunday should come under the direction of the local licensing board. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) suggested, board members are the people who should have the right to decide whether off-licences should open.
I believe that there is no need for off-licences to open on a Sunday. There are already plenty of outlets for the purchase of alcohol, and, as we have heard, we have enough problems already with alcohol, alcoholism, alcohol-related crimes and under-age drinking. We do not need to add to those difficulties by allowing a greater supply of alcohol, especially on a Sunday.
I am prepared to argue on behalf of the many churchgoing communities in Scotland. They will be appalled if clause 17 stands. Over the years they have seen their Sunday, which they believe is holy, and should be treated as a day of reverence and of rest, eroded. Many others, too, believe that Sunday is a special day. It is a day for the family, a day on which people can try to recover from the traumas of their lives during the rest of the week.
The hon. Member for Ayr said that he supported the Sunday Trading Bill. I did not. Although we already had deregulation in Scotland, I was aware that if it came about in England, too, many stores that did not previously open on a Sunday in England would start opening on a Sunday in Scotland. Only this afternoon, a measure was passed that will allow more gambling with betting offices being opened for off-course betting. So, on a Sunday, we shall see gambling and more alcohol, which I believe that the people of Scotland, on the whole, do not want.
Sunday is a special day and it is a day that the people of Scotland want to keep special. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that the tourists would not be able to buy whisky. However, they can buy whisky on every other day of the week and it will not spoil their visit to Scotland if they go there to find that we have a different day and a special type of Sunday, which we cherish and care about.

Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that, in Oban, it is any different from the position in Pitlochry on Sunday, where all the shops are open and all the traders are catering for the many thousands of visitors who we welcome. It seems that the hon. Lady is making allegations that just do not represent what happens in our constituencies, where we are very much for tourism. They are full of life on Sunday. It is not a day of rest. All the people working in the shops are certainly not resting.

Mrs. Michie: I referred to the fact that there are many places in many parts of Scotland where people care deeply about their Sunday. Indeed, there are many people in Pitlochry who also care about their Sunday.

Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Michie: Just once.

Mr. Kynoch: With regard to those people who want to keep their Sunday different and want to have a day of rest, does not the hon. Lady agree that they can still have their day of rest? First, they do not have to open if they are a shopkeeper and, secondly, if they are a customer, they do not have to buy. There is no compulsion in the clause. It is freedom of choice.

Mrs. Michie: But that is not the reality of what happens. We have heard what happens, especially on the housing estates. What will happen in the smaller communities? I can think of one where the people will be in church and, if the betting office is open, it will be just alongside the church. In the next street, the off-licence will be open and, up the road, the big superstore will be open. What I am trying to say is that Sunday is a special day in Scotland and something that we should care about.
Every community is different. They are different in the north of Scotland in comparison to the south. I accept that. Strong views are held in some communities and perhaps less strong views in others, but by including clause 17 in the Bill, the Government will be riding roughshod over local opinion. That opinion should be reflected by community councils, local organisations, and district councils, and any action taken on that subject should be done by the licensing boards, as I have already said. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment and perhaps consider coming back here, or in the other place, to introduce legislation under which local licensing boards have the authority to allow places to be open or shut. That would be acceptable to the majority of hon. Members and to the majority of communities in Scotland.

Mr. William McKelvey: On this occasion, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who moved the amendment, and I also disagree with some colleagues with whom, formerly, I would have agreed. May I also declare an interest? I was a former chairman of a licensing board and had the reputation of being a liberal chairman—with a small "1" and with a big heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who spoke so eloquently about his passion for keeping Sunday safe, supported me in some of the liberalising measures, such as being the first area in Scotland to have pavement licences. He very much applauded that.
I am also the chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky group. It has a very serious interest in allowing premises to be open on Sunday, not so much for the sale of whisky from off-licences as for very important tourist reasons. The 100 or so distilleries that open their doors for visitors on a Sunday and allow them to see the reception areas and the museum areas, because the distilleries are part of the heritage of Scotland, find it an anomaly that, while they may provide the visitors with a free dram, which they regularly do, once those visitors to our shores have acquired an instant liking for the spirit of life, they cannot —they are somewhat disturbed by this—purchase whisky


on a Sunday from the distillery. They could, of course, go to the nearest pub to buy the same drink at an inflated price. However, I have never argued that inflated prices should be paid by visitors to our shores. Tourists, especially in highland areas, add a great deal to the local economy.

Mr. Galloway: We find ourselves in the very foreign relationship, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) says, of disagreeing with each other. It strikes me that, if it was so much in the distilleries' interest to seduce the visitor or to hook him on the spirit of life, they could give it away in miniatures as a kind of loss leader. Discovering that they like it so much, the tourists could buy it on Monday in great quantities.

Mr. McKelvey: The difficulty with that approach is that some of the tourists might be winging their way out of Prestwick on a Sunday evening back to their homeland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead will be interested to know that it will soon be the 500th anniversary of the discovery—or invention—of Scotch whisky. The Scotch Whisky Association has put together an up-to-date programme listing the 42 distilleries which, on a Saturday, will welcome anyone to their premises and which will give free entry in most cases. In all cases, they will give a free dram to those who wish to see how a distillery works and to understand and learn about the history of Scotch whisky, as part of our heritage. The visitors will even be allowed to purchase, perhaps on a Saturday, a bottle of whisky. It is the nonsense of the legislation—or the lack of it—to which I object.
It is crazy to say that on a Saturday, the licensed grocers or the off-licences can open and dispense their drink, but not on a Sunday. If there is a difficulty about the drinks that they are dispensing, that is something with which we must deal. The one big mystery is where the lager louts go on a Sunday. Where do the groups of people who hang about and urinate in the closes on a Saturday go on a Sunday?
I agree that all licence-holders should be very careful about what they sell on their premises. However, I have yet to come across a publican who would not give someone a carry-out provided that he had the money to pay for it. Anyone can buy a case of strong lager from the pub. He can then, presumably, hump it on his back to the nearest close where people can gather in a group, start to drink and do all the unpleasant things of which they are accused. I know that lager louts gather in groups in some housing schemes and that they create difficulties for respectable people. That problem should be dealt with instantly by the police. Authorities already have that power.
We asked the Minister about an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). Through our amendment, we said that we wanted the measures that had applied in the experiment in Dundee and in other areas to be introduced elsewhere. The experiment was partially successful, certainly in central areas where a large number of lager louts had been gathering and creating abuse not only for Dundee's respectable citizens but, visitors as well. It also happens in some central areas in our capital city. In the experiment, we were able to legislate to disperse the lager louts and—I agree—in some cases

simply to move them to back streets or some underground howff which they may have chosen. However, they could still be pursued if the areas were extended.
I hope that the Minister is not going back on the promise that he made at the time. At the Dispatch Box, he said that, if any authority applied for areas where drinking in public would be a criminal offence, the Scottish Office would move with alacrity to supply the means to do that.
We were also concerned that the measure might go too far. If people are having a garden party or a barbecue out in the country and a bottle of wine is produced, suddenly half a dozen detectives could swoop on them from the trees and whisk them away. That is not what is intended, but it could happen if the Government are not careful about the way in which they couch the legislation. There is no need —and there should not be a case for it—for respectable citizens to be molested by drunken louts on any of our streets. As it is an offence, the police have the right to take care of that sort of situation, and they should do so.
Are we suggesting that drunkards do not pour out of pubs on occasions, and that we do not see gangs of drunken louts, not particularly at close heads but in the main streets of Glasgow, creating difficulties for people and visitors? They are there. At certain times of the night when clubs close, there is a huge exodus of people who are high sometimes on drink and sometimes on illicit drugs. There are great difficulties in those areas and we must legislate for that.
To come out with pious nonsense and say that we must keep Sunday special in order to give a rest to people who are molested six days a week is intolerable. I do not want anyone to be molested for six days a week. I do not want them to be molested for five, four, three, two days or one day a week. I would agree with legislating along those lines. Some may argue that this is an underhanded method of finding a piece of legislation, but if one happens to agree, it is acceptable. [Interruption.] That happens in the House time after time. If legislation happens to be introduced, by whatever device, and we are in favour of it, we often find that it is acceptable. It is not a question of principle. I stand here as principled as other hon. Members, but perhaps a bit more honest than some.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman referred to the problem of drugs on our streets. Recently, I heard him talk about the problems of alcoholism; he said that there is no real cure. Clause 17 will exacerbate the problem because it goes too far. Will the hon. Gentleman consider his position with regard to his recent comments on alcoholism and accept that it is something that cannot be cured totally?

Mr. McKelvey: I accept that the situation is not out of control. With the police acting promptly, the problem can be solved. There is absolutely no need for anyone to tolerate the sort of scenes that have been outlined in the debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me that town councils and local authorities should have more power, not less, as has been happening under other Government legislation. Licensing boards should have, as they once did, the power to legislate and not to grant licences where either an off-licence or a licensed grocer was selling to children, or where a public house was not being kept properly. Today, if there is evidence of under-age drinking in public houses, the licence can be


taken from the publican. The publican safeguards the licence and regards it as a precious piece of property since, in effect, it is his livelihood.
It is not true that we are awash in Scotland with outlets for drink. Recent surveys have shown, incredibly, that the macho-like Scots are not—as they might imagine—the heaviest or hardest drinkers in the United Kingdom. In some parts of England and Wales, the drink consumed per capita is one and a half times what it is in Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman remember Dundee in the days when the pubs closed at 9.30? There were enormous problems with drunkenness in the city of Dundee, which vanished when the licensing laws were changed and were made much more sensible and relaxed.

Mr. McKelvey: My hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead, who spoke so eloquently, may recall that on Friday evening, it was a great event, as a child in Atholl street in Lochee—where I lived and where my hon. Friend was born—to wait until the pubs emptied so we could line up in the streets and see the street fighting. It was not the kind of gang attacks which occur there now—it was quite artistic pugilism when the pubs emptied.
I argued at the time on the licensing board that one of the reasons why we had so much trouble at half-past nine was that those people who finished their overtime at 9 o'clock got into the pub and downed as many nips and halves as they could in a short period which knocked them squidgy. They went outside, were not their usual selves and some trouble occurred.
When we extended the licensing times, the holy Willies told us that it was hell and damnation and that the whole nation would be drunk from morning till night, and even beyond that. In fact, that has not been the case at all. First, people could not consume that amount of alcohol and remain on their feet. Secondly, there is the question of cost. People simply cannot afford to spend their money over that period of time.
Irrespective of the means by which the legislation has been introduced to the House—I should have preferred it to have been done through a proper survey—I have a strange feeling that, even if in a referendum 90 per cent. had been in favour of opening, the same opposition as we are hearing tonight would have been voiced in the Chamber for a variety of reasons.
I firmly believe that we should legislate to bring the matter into a proper balance. If the experiment were to be done, it would show that, in the long term, no additional harm would be done to our society and to the life we live in Scotland. There would certainly be no reason why life would be any worse.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I find myself very much in sympathy with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey).
In response to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I shall say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs made it clear in Standing Committee that, to provide an opportunity for a debate on the Floor of the House, he invited the Committee to allow the clause to remain in the Bill. He said that we could have a proper debate with as many participants as possible—in particular Scottish Members—and in circumstances where the Whips would not try to determine the outcome.
I warmly welcome the fact that this will be a free vote, certainly for every Government Member and I hope that that includes Opposition Front-Bench Members. The hon. Member for Hamilton also raised the issue of there being too many off-licences in some areas. That is, of course, entirely a matter for local licensing boards, which can refuse applications for new off-licences if they are satisfied that the granting of a licence would result in an over-provision in a particular locality.
11.45 pm
That provision was introduced in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, which was piloted onto the statute book by Harry Ewing, now Lord Ewing, for the last Labour Government, whom I recall. Unlike many of my colleagues on the Front Bench, I remember what it was like to be in opposition.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: If it is right that the licensing boards have a power in respect of provision, why is it not equally right that the licensing board should have the power to determine whether it is in the community's interests for an off-licence to be open on a Sunday? The Minister is familiar with my constituency. Does he honestly think that it is right that one individual can thwart and defy the wishes of an entire community such as that in the Western Isles on this matter? Would not it be more democratic for the local licensing boards to have the option?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Guest committee considered whether the matter should be discretionary in its 1960 report. It recommended that, instead of the varied hours fixed by the licensing courts of the day, there should be standard permitted hours for licensed premises for the whole of Scotland. That was accepted by the Clayson committee.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not think that the Minister is giving the House the whole story. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest. I have some professional expertise in licensing matters and from time to time appear on behalf of companies and individuals who might be thought to have some pecuniary interest in the outcome of our deliberations. The Minister piloted the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill through the Committee in 1990. He knows that the determination of the regular extension of permitted hours is a matter entirely within the discretion of local licensing boards. Why does he not use that as a parallel when considering the issue that has just been put to him? Why should it not be within the discretion of licensing boards in Scotland to determine whether off-sales shops should be open to reflect the different social conditions throughout Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As a member of the Clayson committee, the hon. and learned Member will recall that the committee recommended that there should be standard permitted hours. That provision was included in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1962 and continued by the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. The crux of the matter is that it would be anomalous to introduce a specific discretion for licensing boards solely in relation to Sunday hours for off-sale premises in their areas.
The crux of the matter was referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). He made it clear that it was a striking anomaly that, whereas the


off-sales sections in supermarkets and other shops have to be cordoned off, off-sales from public houses and hotels are available, although much more expensively.
As for enforcement, licensing boards have powers to suspend the licence of off-licence premises on receipt of a complaint. They rightly have those powers at present.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman and I have many points to cover.
With regard to choice, under clause 17 licensed retailers will be able to assess the commercial opportunities for themselves. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) properly mentioned distilleries which provide conducted visits for tourists. The distilleries would have the opportunity, if they wished to do so, to sell souvenirs of their products. That would undoubtedly be good for tourism. I have to point out again to the House that tourists businesses are the largest single employer in the whole of Scotland.
Clause 17 does not permit off-licences to trade on a Sunday morning before 12.30, having regard to the existing opening time of 12.30 for licensed premises generally. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) raised the issue on 27 October and I made it clear that one day it might come before the House and be put to the vote. I support the clause on the grounds that it removes an anomaly, benefits tourism and increases consumer choice.
Relevant points were made earlier about nuisance. I want to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). Many statutory offences already exist and should be used. The hon. Gentleman gave the example of someone urinating. This is covered by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act (1982), which deals with drunken and incapable behaviour, urination in public places in circumstances that would cause annoyance and obstruction of the lawful passage of another person. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act (1980) includes an offence of vandalism, as well as augmenting the common law on malicious mischief, and behaviour likely to cause alarm or annoyance may constitute the common law crime of breach of the peace. All those offences attract sizeable fines or imprisonment.
I want to deal with the key issue concerning byelaws that was raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton. I agree that this is the way forward. The experiments have been successful, and we hope that local authorities will come forward with proposals. Indeed, seven are already discussing possible byelaws with the Scottish Office. I hope very much that the process will be completed successfully. The maximum penalty for breach of the byelaws is a fine of £500.

Mr. George Robertson: When does the Minister intend to publish the results of the byelaw experiment so that the rest of Scotland may share the experience of the three towns that were chosen? Have the fears about displacement of the nuisance been realised? Surely the proper way to proceed is to publish the report on what has been an ambitious, and what the Minister has just described as a successful, experiment so that the people of Scotland may themselves come to a conclusion, rather than

to provide an add-on to a deregulation measure that has little or nothing to do with the problem that we know exists.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have already debated this issue in the context of criminal justice legislation. Although the final results of the experiment have yet to be published, the main conclusions, with guidance, have already been issued to the local authorities, and we are prepared to consider any application sympathetically. I have also mentioned the fact that licensing boards already have the relevant sanctions to withdraw or suspend a licence where there is a nuisance. The purchase by an older person of alcohol for a person under 18 is already an offence.

Mr. Galloway: The Minister is advancing the fatuous argument that all the nuisances that we have described are already offences. We realise that. But how many prosecutions does the Minister think there have been in the city of Glasgow, or anywhere else, in the past 10 years? Given the burden on the overstretched police forces, does the Minister really think that a constituent of mine phoning up to say that a lout is urinating outside an off-licence will see the arrival of police in less than four or five hours, by which time the lout has staggered off?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Enforcement of the law is very much a matter for the police.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman raised the point. His party kept the police force in Strathclyde under strength. I am glad to say that it has had a change of heart and that the police are now becoming much stronger. I can assure the House that there has been no change whatsoever in the treatment of alleged offences that come before the law enforcement agencies, which will pursue cases vigorously.
We are very concerned about under-age drinking. We encourage schools to tackle alcohol issues in the context of health and education programmes. Currently we are engaging in a poster campaign. But, more important, statutory obligations have been introduced. There is a statutory embargo on unsupervised sales by people under 18 in off-licence or wholesale premises; it is an offence for any person to buy alcohol for or to sell alcohol to a person under 18; and it is an offence for a person under 18 to buy alcohol for his own or any other person's consumption. Indeed, we have made various other changes.

Mr. Gallie: It has been pointed out that it is illegal to sell drink to young people. But it is not illegal for young people to consume drink. What does my hon. Friend intend to do about that?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It most certainly is illegal for a person under the age of 18 to buy alcohol for his own or any other person's consumption. I made that absolutely clear to the House, so the circumstances that the hon. Member for Hamilton mentioned may well be illegal.
Attitudes have changed. In a recent survey for the Scottish Retailers Licensing Law Reform Group, by System 3 Scotland, 63 per cent. of a sample of more than 1,000 adults were in favour of retail stores selling alcohol on Sundays and 37 per cent. said that they would be likely to buy alcohol from a licensed retailer on a Sunday. The commercial reality will simply be that off-licences will remain closed on a Sunday unless they have sufficient customers to make opening worth their while.

Mr. Macdonald: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must get on.
In a letter to all Members of Parliament representing Scotland, the Scottish Consumer Council made it clear that it supports the clause because it believes that it is a sensible extension of choice to consumers, allowing them greater freedom to decide when they wish to purchase alcohol.
The introduction of the new law in 1976 did not result in any significant overall increase in alcohol consumption. A 1984 survey showed that consumption among men was virtually the same in 1984 as in 1976 and that an increase in women's drinking seemed to reflect the more relaxed attitude to their drinking.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, in which matters of principle have been debated with great passion. Members have deeply held convictions on the issue and it is right and proper that the House should decide on a free vote. For my part, I believe that clause 17 should remain part of the Bill. It removes an anomaly and extends a new freedom to retailers and—much more importantly—to consumers, who will benefit from enhanced choice and more competitive prices. People who are concerned with potential public nuisance can be reassured that a battery of statutory and common law sanctions is already available and permits the police and licensing boards to take the appropriate action against those who might act irresponsibly. The clause represents steady and sensible progress. It is a reform consistent with current social attitudes and I commend it to the House as being in keeping with the spirit of the last year of the 20th century. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Darling: As usual, the Minister's response was not very satisfactory. It was longer than his response to the debate on extending aggravated trespass to the law of Scotland, but the content was not much better, which is a pity because, despite what he said, I agree with the conclusion that he reached.
I represent the city centre in Edinburgh and, perhaps more than some other hon. Members, I have reason to know of the problems that arise because of the abuse of alcohol. I do not see much difference between meeting someone in the street who has had far too much to drink in a pub and meeting someone who has had far too much to drink from cans bought from an off-licence. The clinch point is that it is absurd that one can buy as much drink as one wants in a pub in Scotland and that one can buy drink to take home from a pub in Scotland on a Sunday, but one cannot buy it from a supermarket or other off-licence premises. That is an anomaly that ought to be ended.
I understand the problems that exist in parts of Scotland with regard to off-licence premises. I am prepared to accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and others said about that. My hon. Friend must also accept that the problems in Edinburgh and its city centre tend to arise not from off-licence premises but from fully licensed premises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) mentioned the fact that many licensed premises are underneath tenemental property. In fact, 90 per cent. of my constituents live in such property and most of the pubs in Edinburgh are also under such property. That is where the problems arise.
My conclusion is that the problem that we need to review is not off-licence premises in Scotland but the

licensing regime. We must face up to that fact. As many hon. Members said, it is not merely a problem on Sunday, but one that goes on for six days a week. If the clause is passed, it will be a problem that we shall have to deal with all of the time.
It is high time that the House examined how the licensing laws operate. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friends who say that it is probably the wrong place and the wrong Bill to do that, but the measure is before us tonight and we have to reach a judgment. It is a free vote and we are all entitled to express our opinions according to our experience and that of our constituents. That is how it ought to be.
The licensing laws need to be examined as they are biased against the objectors—the ordinary members of the public. Licensees tend not only to have access to representation, which they can well afford, but rights of appeal; they have greater opportunities than ordinary objectors. It is high time that the balance was redressed.
12 midnight
I do not see why my constituents should have to put up with far too many late licence outlets that stay open until all hours of the morning when they also have to put up with people coming out of pubs and nightclubs late at night and causing disturbances. I have sympathy with people living next to off-licence premises where there is a problem, but we will not tackle that problem by banning everything for everyone all the time. That is a wrong response; it cannot be right as a matter of public policy.
If there are problems—my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead has said that there are certain problems with off-licence premises—the licensing boards should be given powers to stop shops from opening. At the moment they have great difficulty because they can be challenged if they are do not operate a consistent policy.
I am prepared to let them be inconsistent; I am even prepared to do away with the normal standards of proof in some cases where there is a good suspicion that problems are occurring at certain premises, but that cannot be proved, even on the balance of probabilities. I am prepared to do that because the rights of ordinary citizens who live next door to licensed premises ought to be protected.
However, I cannot accept that it is right to ban people from buying alcohol from supermarkets on a Sunday when at the same time, on the same day of the week, we let them go to the pub and drink as much as they want or buy alcohol to take home. That cannot be right; it is inconsistent. I accept that there is a problem. Let us deal with it through the licensing regime rather than by a blanket ban.

Mr. Macdonald: I make no apology for detaining the House—or the Government Whip who seems in a hurry to conclude the debate—for a few minutes longer, not just because of the unacceptable approach, the back-door method of tackling the policy, but because the Minister failed to address one of the key points that I tried to put to him and that was made earlier by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).
We are talking about the objection to the Government's proposal. It is not simply a question of public order, or the nuisance and disturbance that having off-licences open creates in certain areas. That was discussed by many hon. Members. The Minister seemed to focus his entire reply, in an unsatisfactory way, on public order, but there is a


separate issue—the right of local communities to pursue, protect and defend a particular way of life and a particular set of values.
The Minister knows the Western Isles very well. He has a great love and affection for them. One of the things that he likes about the Western Isles is the particular way of life there. The Minister and the Government are proposing to take away from the community in the islands the right to shape, determine and maintain that way of life.
The Minister, in refusing any more interventions from me, was displaying a bit of a guilty conscience. He is familiar with the area. It is not just a question of freedom of choice for individuals, which is an important value, but the freedom of choice for communities. Communities should be able to pursue a culture and set of values that suit and benefit them and are attractive for others to observe and even visit. The Minister referred to the measure's value for tourism, but many tourists come to the Western Isles for the way of life there, especially the observance of the Sabbath, which is one of the major linchpins and attractions of the community in the islands.
Although the measure may not result in off-licences opening in the Western Isles, the community will no longer have a defence against that happening. How can the Minister think that it is right, in communities like those in Lewis, Stornoway or Harris, for one individual to go against the wishes of the community? It is not a question of that individual going his own way without affecting the rest of the community as others do not have to open or man the shop or buy goods there. If a shop is open and being utilised, it immediately affects the surrounding community, and the way of life is irretrievably lost.
The Minister knows the great effort that the community in the islands has made in recent years to preserve its way of life. He is also responsible for transport issues in Scotland and will know the uproar that was created when Caledonian MacBrayne proposed sailing a ferry service into Tarbert on Sundays. The outrage went extremely deep and, ultimately, Caledonian MacBrayne had to back off from its proposal. The Minister appreciates that aspect of life in the Western Isles, so why cannot he acknowledge that local communities, through their licensing board as has been suggested, should be able to exercise that key, vital say?
It is no good the Minister referring to committees and saying that that is the position with which they came up and it should be standardised throughout Scotland. I am asking for the Minister's personal view of the matter. In his heart of hearts, he cannot oppose the suggestion in the amendment that was unfortunately not selected, but that is still open for the Government to pursue later in another place.
I appeal to the Minister to think of the community that he loves to visit and consider whether it is right for it to retain that essential democratic ability to preserve its unique way of life.

Mr. Wilson: I shall be extremely brief—in case the pubs shut.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on introducing the amendment. This robust debate has crossed party lines. We have had serious and well-argued disagreement about the amendment within the ranks of three of the Scottish parties. It is a tribute to the Labour,

Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties that they have bothered to participate. There is one notable omission from the ranks on an issue that affects the lives of every Scottish citizen, for better or worse.
The fact that we are able to have this debate and, hopefully, a free vote on the matter is healthy, and I hope that the outcome is the one that I favour. The important point is that the debate has crossed party lines because every hon. Member who has participated has different experiences to reflect.
I was involved over many months with the Committee that considered the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, in which the matter was brought forward by the Government. Again, the divisions in that Bill crossed party lines. On that occasion the Government were obliged to back off because of a consensus in the Committee against the opening of off-sales premises on Sundays. The arguments that we have heard tonight were very much in the same vein.
The charge that must be levelled against the Minister is that four years have passed since that Committee sat. I remember it well because it was during the time of the previous world cup. Four years ago, we had exactly the same debate, argument and dichotomy. We are talking not about one subject—whether all licensed premises in Scotland should be able to open on a Sunday—but the fact that there is a whole range of different types of premises to which different arguments apply.
Of course it is sensible that, if one goes into a supermarket that is legally open on a Sunday, one should be able to buy a bottle of wine, or whatever. Of course it is sensible, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) says, that if one is visiting a distillery on a tourist bus, one should be able to buy the miniatures from that distillery. But, as was argued by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), and by the hon. Member for Ayr, there is a totally qualitatively different kind of problem in many areas of Scotland.
The fact is that, on other issues that we debate, behind the facade of reasonableness of the case, other people are waiting to take advantage of something that is not at all reasonable—in areas where the facility is not wanted, the opening of off-licences from morning to night, which will be imposed on them for seven days of the week instead of six.
The charge that must be levelled against the Government is that, in four years, they have done nothing to separate those arguments and come up with something that would be acceptable to everybody in the House, and in which some discretion was permitted or in which the difference in the arguments was recognised by the legislation. All that has happened is that, four years later, through a back door, the same blanket proposal comes forward, and we are having the same arguments again tonight. Because of that, I will vote against the amendment.
Of course, if the legislation took account of the light and shade of the argument and the different circumstances that prevail, I would want there to be some Sunday off-sales in Scotland. But instead of that, the Government are trying to get through, on the basis of a reasonable approach, the unreasonable proposition that every off-sales premises in Scotland should be open. The Government have not taken account of any popular feeling. They have not taken account of the different arguments.
The arguments that the Minister adduced are perfectly good in some respects, but, as he knows—or certainly should know—they are not in others. I very much hope that the Government will learn this lesson tonight: for heaven's sake, take account of what people think. Go out and listen to the constituents who do not want this sort of thing on their doorstep seven days a week. Listen to people who want the facility, such as supermarkets, and then try to draw up some reasonably sensitive legislation that takes account of both points of view. They have failed to do so, so the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ayr deserves to be carried tonight.

Mr. John Home Robertson: This subject revives happy memories of our late colleague, Gregor MacKenzie, the former right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen, who, I recall, enjoyed inviting his colleagues to join him in the Smoking Room from time to time for a small Christian refreshment. I certainly enjoy the produce of Belhaven brewery, or Glenkinchie distillery in East Lothian, in my home, on a Sunday from time to time, but find myself rather uncomfortably in the middle of the argument this evening.
I accept the case for relaxing absurd regulations, and would be quite happy for local licensing boards to be able to allow appropriate businesses and premises to sell alcoholic drinks on a Sunday, but I am very worried about the prospect of passing a law that would require all off-licences to be allowed to open seven days a week. I think that there is a middle way. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) that allowing all off-licences to sell alcoholic drinks seven days a week could cause a serious problem in many neighbourhoods: it could constitute a diabolical imposition on residents.
12.15 am
I think that local licensing boards should be allowed discretion. The point has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and others. It is a pity that we are not able to consider amendment No 103, tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and I am still concerned about the prospect of the legislation being passed as it stands without such a safeguard; but it would be possible for the Government to bring the idea back in the House of Lords.
If the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking to enable local licensing boards to be given discretion by means of amendments tabled in the House of Lords, I shall be happy to leave the legislation in its present form, but in the absence of such an undertaking I feel that we have no choice but to accept the amendment; otherwise we shall end up with some very bad legislation for Scotland.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To some extent, I have been stung into joining the debate by what I must describe as the Minister's rather inadequate response to a debate that has clearly demonstrated the considerable and legitimate anxiety felt by many people with direct experience of the consequences of the substantial change in the licensing law effected by the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
To those who have argued that it is time for another review of Scottish licensing law, I can only say that I consider their argument well founded: it is more than 20 years since the Clayson committee reported, and at least 16

years since the first legislative implementation of its recommendations. Anyone with any knowledge of the way in which the licensing trade has developed in Scotland will probably appreciate that there have been substantial changes, far beyond any of those contemplated by Dr. Clayson.
One of the significant recommendations of the Clayson report which has not been acted on was that the radical solutions that it proposed should be subject to constant monitoring to ensure that the consequences of enshrining them in legislation were properly understood and evaluated. In view of that, I feel that the case for a further review is overwhelming.
Some hon. Members have drawn attention to an anomaly: it is possible to go into a public house and buy off-sales liquor, but not to go into the off-sales outlet or licensed grocer next door and perform the same transaction. That anomaly was created when we allowed public houses to sell by way of off sales on Sundays. When the issue was under discussion in 1990, while we were debating the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, a number of people expressed considerable reservations about the piecemeal way in which the Government were proceeding, and emphasised the obvious fact that an anomaly was being created. We are now being asked not to remedy the original anomaly but to compound it. The Government have presented the House with an ill-thought-out piece of legislation that does not take proper account of its consequences.
One of the most notable features of the debate has been the anxiety of individual hon. Members to argue that, given the circumstances of the communities that they represent, a blanket permission for all off-sales premises to open is inadequate. One could not but be impressed by the case advanced by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). It is not simply that the Western Isles are different from Hillhead, north-east Fife or Dundee; the point is that there may be significant differences even within those communities. One has only to consider the constituency of Glasgow, Hillhead to realise that even within one area there are circumstances in which the opening of an off-sales premises on a Sunday might be entirely legitimate while in other circumstances it is likely to produce the adverse social effects to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) referred.
The Government are failing to allow local licensing boards the opportunity to discriminate. However, they of course already allow them to discriminate in relation to the regular extension of permitted hours. When a licensing board determines permitted hours, it does not do so on a blanket basis throughout the area under its jurisdiction. Each outlet has to argue for the extension of permitted hours that it seeks, so that there already exists a substantial discretion in that regard.
There is no evidence to suggest that, having been invested with that discretion, licensing boards have exercised it unreasonably. Indeed, all the evidence points to the fact that they have been entirely conscientious and reasonable in the exercise of a substantial discretion. If the Government are prepared to trust licensing boards on the regular extension of permitted hours—sometimes extensions are sought until 4 am—why are they not prepared to invest the same trust in the same democratically elected people to determine whether, in their jurisdiction, a particular off-sales outlet should be entitled to open on a Sunday?
I fear that the Minister gave no answer to that fundamental question, and for that reason, in addition to many others advanced in the debate, I am minded to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 108.

Division No. 236]
[12.21 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Amess, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kirkwood, Archy


Barnes, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Bates, Michael
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beggs, Roy
McAvoy, Thomas


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Macdonald, Calum


Booth, Hartley
McFall, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McLeish, Henry


Brazier, Julian
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cohen, Harry
Michael, Alun


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Morley, Elliot


Dalyell, Tam
Neubert, Sir Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Rendel, David


Dixon, Don
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Eastham, Ken
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Elletson, Harold
Salmond, Alex


Etherington, Bill
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Spellar, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Spink, Dr Robert


Galbraith, Sam
Wallace, James


Galloway, George
Wilson, Brian


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wray, Jimmy


Graham, Thomas



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Phil Gallie and


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Mr. Jonathan Evans.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Callaghan, Jim


Alexander, Richard
Canavan, Dennis


Arbuthnot, James
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Coe, Sebastian


Batiste, Spencer
Connarty, Michael


Betts, Clive
Conway, Derek


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Darling, Alistair


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Brandreth, Gyles
Devlin, Tim


Bright, Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dover, Den


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Duncan, Alan





Duncan-Smith, Iain
Nelson, Anthony


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
O'Neill, Martin


Fatchett, Derek
Patnick, Irvine


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Pickles, Eric


Gale, Roger
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Gardiner, Sir George
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Rathbone, Tim


Gorst, John
Richards, Rod


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Riddick, Graham


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hawkins, Nick
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Heald, Oliver
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sims, Roger


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sproat, Iain


Illsley, Eric
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Ingram, Adam
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jenkin, Bernard
Steen, Anthony


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sykes, John


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Thomason, Roy


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Thumham, Peter


Knox, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Waterson, Nigel


Lidington, David
Watts, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Bowen


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Whittingdale, John


McAllion, John
Widdecombe, Ann


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


McKelvey, William
Wood, Timothy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Worthington, Tony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Yeo, Tim


Merchant, Piers



Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tellers for the Noes:


Monro, Sir Hector
Mr. Bill Walker and


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. John Maxton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Bill,as amended (in the Standing Committee),to be further considered this day.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Ordered,
That the provisions of paragraph (2)of Standing Order No.84(Constitution of standing committees),paragraph(1)of Standing Order No.86(Nomination of standing committees)and Standing Order No.101(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments,&c.)shall apply to the special Grant Report (Metropolitan Railway Grant)(House of Commons Paper No.370)as if it were a statutory instrument;and that the said Report be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr.Nicholas Baker.]

Boxing (Brain Injuries)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Jim Callaghan: As a young sports teacher, many years ago, I had serious doubts about the merits of boxing. As a result of those doubts I refused to organise boxing activities in the school. I have never regretted that decision.
I well remember, too, the answer given to me by the son of a former world champion when I asked him whether he would follow in the footsteps of his father and go into boxing. He replied, "Have you seen my father recently?" I had to admit that I had. That boy took up football and became a good soccer player.
Only when my attention was drawn to the present plight of Muhammad Ali was I totally converted with regard to the terrible hazards and tragedies connected with professional boxing. Muhammad Ali was known as "The Greatest"; in my view he is the greatest advertisement for the necessity to investigate the safety of boxing. One look at his condition is enough to register the insidious effect of a life spent absorbing blows to the head. His legs are leaden and his hands tremble. It is said that he has Parkinson's syndrome and that his condition is not due to boxing. However, I have video tapes of his later fights, which would suggest otherwise and that he took one punch too many. A former boxing fan said of him:
I stood talking to Ali, embarrassed by his inarticulateness and deeply ashamed, as it was not his own superb body that had done this terrible thing. I had done it, too, as part of the crowd urging him on, applauding the blood.
I have not watched a boxing match since.
Subsequently, because of the impact that that left on me, on 25 September 1991 I asked the then Minister for Sport for his views and the intentions of his Department regarding professional boxing, given the then medical condition of a professional boxer, Mike Watson, following a contest between him and Chris Eubank. The Minister replied on 30 October 1991 and I shall paraphrase his answer. He said that the Government did not control boxing or any other sport in the country and, in the case cited, the responsibility lay with the British Boxing Board of Control. He went on to say that injuries occur in many sports where physical exertion is excessive, that what is paramount is that the risk is controllable and containable and that the medical safeguards in British boxing are among the most rigorous in the world.
He therefore did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an inquiry into the future of amateur or professional boxing. Nevertheless, he said that he took a serious view of what had happened and that he had asked the BBBC to provide him with a full account of the events and its conclusions about what action, if any, it regarded as necessary, including the need for a BBBC inquiry.
The Minister said that he would study what the board had to say very carefully and would encourage it to listen to practical suggestions from other experts as to how safety standards may be improved. He said that I might have known that, on 16 October, he chaired a meeting with the BBBC and a number of eminent medical specialists to discuss safety in boxing.
On 23 June 1993, I asked the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he had received a copy of the British

Medical Association's report into the risks associated with boxing and if he intended to set up an independent inquiry into those risks. He replied that his Department had obtained a copy of the report on its publication, but did not believe that the risks associated with boxing were sufficient to justify an inquiry. I have also asked the Prime Minister, at Prime Minister's Question Time, if he and his Government intended to ban boxing. The Prime Minister replied that they had no intention to ban boxing.
Last year and earlier this year, I tried to obtain a debate on the subject, but without any success. Tonight, I have been successful. I mention that because it may be thought that I called for the debate because of the recent death of another boxer. That is not so, as I have been trying for some time.
There have been several deaths in boxing over the years. They include those of Steve Watt, Johnny Owen and the Nigerian Young Ali. The most recent death in boxing in Britain occurred when Bradley Stone, aged 23, died after being stopped in the 10th round. It was Bradley Stone's second stoppage in the space of only 53 days. Where are the controls? In the past month, Michael Bentt has collapsed after losing his World Boxing Organisation crown. The grim toll of death and injury in boxing make it unworthy of being called a sport.
The British Medical Association has revealed that, since 1984, eight boxers have died and six have survived only after surgery, three with long-term brain damage, and that since 1945, 361 deaths have been recorded worldwide. As a result, professional boxing has been banned in Sweden, Ireland and Norway. The BMA wants it banned in this country and because of its medical research into boxing injuries, it has become a leading authority on the hazards of boxing. In 1982, a resolution was passed at the annual representatives meeting, which stated:
That in view of the proven ocular and brain damage resulting from professional boxing, the Association should campaign for its abolition.
In response to the resolution, the board of science and education of the BMA set up a working party to review the evidence on brain and eye damage as a result of boxing injuries and to publish a report of its findings. In the final report published in 1984, it was concluded that damage occurred to the eye and the brain in both amateur and professional boxers. The report attracted strong opposition to a total ban from a number of sources, including the British Boxing Board of Control, the Amateur Boxing Association and the National Association of Boys' Clubs.
A further resolution was passed at the 1987 meeting. It stated:
In view of the continuing serious ill effects on the health of boxers, this meeting requests the BMA to pursue the Government with renewed vigour until there is a ban on boxing and, until such time as this is achieved, believes that the TV coverage should include a statement of the damage which may result from boxing.
Since then, the BMA and individual members have continued to promulgate the evidence of harm caused by boxing. In 1992, the BMA set up a boxing steering group to review evidence on boxing published since 1984 and to make use of recent advances in methods of early detection of brain damage from head injuries. It again called for a total ban on all boxing.
In June 1993, the BMA produced a book called "The Boxing Debate", which I recommend anyone to read. It reviewed the existing evidence relating to boxing. The book analyses the mechanisms by which injury occurs to


the brain and the eye in boxing. It states that, during the course of a boxing match, the contestants receive a variable number of blows to the upper torso, arms and head, and that the blows land with widely different degrees of force. The heaviest blows may be as much as half a tonne, which is like being hit by a 12 lb padded wooden mallet travelling at 20 mph.
In the case of such a blow hitting the head, the greatest amount of force of the blow is transmitted directly to the skull and its contents—the brain. Although training, skill and experience may enable the boxer to reduce the force —known as riding the punch—and may reduce the damage to the brain, cumulatively the punches can damage the brain and eyes. The structure within the skull also contributes to brain damage. The inner surface of the skull of a young adult male is not smooth; it has sharp projections. It is the tearing of the thin superficial veins and the surface damage to the brain as it collides with the skull and its sharp inward projections which give rise to acute subdural haematoma, which is responsible for the serious cerebral compression and death that occasionally follows a boxing match.
The report says that there are two main ways in which boxing may lead to structural damage to the brain. The first type of damage occurs as an acute episode in which one or more severe blows during a single fight lead to a loss of consciousness and occasionally to death. Death in the ring or in the days or weeks following the contest is usually attributable to acute haemorrhage. The second kind of damage tends to develop over a much longer period and is cumulative. It is associated with chronic neurological disorders, which are often seen in boxers.
Damage to the eye and brain occurs in both amateur and professional boxers, although it is doubtful whether participants or others involved in the sport fully appreciate the risks, especially the danger of delayed, cumulative brain damage. Neurological examination, using all the techniques available, may lead to the recognition of progressive brain damage and a recommendation that a boxer should retire from boxing, thus avoiding further damage. However, damage can be detected only after it has occurred; by then, it may be too late.
The approach to professional boxing is somewhat different from that to amateur boxing. The big business aspects of professional boxing are obviously tempting to a young man and the prospect of financial gain may cause him to ignore the risk to his health. While the dangers in amateur boxing are known, in 1987, the secretary of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch, stated his belief that boxing should be removed from the Olympic games within the next 20 years. The BMA is on record as having said that it is grateful for the co-operation that it received from many experts and associations, particularly the Amateur Boxing Association. However, it said that it was disappointed at the lack of co-operation received from the BBBC and regretted the refusal of the BBBC to provide information, or even send representatives to its working party. That is to be regretted.
Hence, the BMA has said that there is no evidence to suggest that boxing is any safer now than when it began to campaign many years ago, and has called again for the

banning of boxing. I agree with the BMA and support its call. However, I have no doubt that the Minister will once again refuse that call.
We have reached an impasse, with the BMA on one side of the argument, the BBBC on the other side and the Minister in the middle. To make progress, I shall make several suggestions to the Minister.
If he will not ban boxing or conduct an inquiry into the dangers associated with the sport, will he ask all officials in all sports to take a leaf out of the actions taken by the Rugby Football Union? For some time, the Rugby Football Union has asked all affiliated clubs and schools to complete forms each year to help to collect data relating to RFU injuries and to send them to the RFU sports injuries administrator. It is an essential exercise which provides data on which to monitor and maintain acceptable safety standards. Information is required solely on those players who, through an injury that occurred in practice or a match, were incapacitated to the degree that their injury prevented them from playing for a minimum period of 21 days.
As a result, the RFU has built up a series of statistics for successive seasons and is now in a position to compare trends. For example, in the first year of its injuries working party, it was found that there was a high incidence of neck injury which caused much concern. The changes in the interpretation of the laws for under 19-year-old players, which were altered for the 1983–84 season, made a great difference. When the changes were studied by the international board, major alterations were made in the laws of the game and the incidence of neck injury fell significantly. The RFU is now looking elsewhere to reduce injury in its game.
In the light of that, could not the Minister ask all other sporting bodies to do the same, and so provide their governing bodies with accurate statistics which could be forwarded to the Minister's Department, thus enabling him to obtain accurate information and statistics which may help to lessen the hazards in all sports, including boxing? Will the Minister bring both sides together and chair a joint meeting with the BBBC, the ABA and the BMA to discuss ways forward and the collection of information and statistics over a period? That would be a move in the right direction and would break the impasse.
In the meantime, as a matter of urgency, could not the Minister suggest that measures be taken to make boxing safer by changing the rules so that points are awarded only for hitting the torso and eliminate blows to the head? There are such rules relating to hitting below the belt.
I also suggest that, as the damage suffered by boxers can be reduced dramatically if they are given enough oxygen and taken immediately to an appropriate hospital, specially qualified doctors skilled in the art of resuscitation should be at the ringside. While resuscitation should take place at the ringside and an ambulance should be on call, it is a sad fact that only 40 of Britain's 760 hospitals have neurosurgical units. The implication of this deficiency is all too obvious. Had such facilities been available to Michael Watson, the result might have been different. Again, boxers should be required to stay within range of the medical facilities for at least an hour after their bout.
As injuries can happen in a gym, regulations and resources are required to tackle those areas, too. Weigh-ins take place 24 hours before a fight and many boxers dehydrate to lose the last few pounds, which has a debilitating effect on the brain. The weigh-in should take place much earlier. Referees are also under instruction to


stop a fight when one man is unable to defend himself. Such action often comes too late and the instruction should be strengthened. Reforms in boxing are certainly needed before further calamities occur.
As one famous boxer said recently,
Boxing damages your brain. Don't let anybody tell you different!
I await the Minister's reply.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on his good fortune in securing the debate at this late hour. I shall begin by giving him an assurance that I shall certainly study carefully the helpful points he made in a thoughtful speech. In particular, I will draw the attention of the BBBC to what he has said and I will gladly have a look at the system which the RFU has put into practice. I thank him for his helpful speech on a subject on which it is difficult to say something new.
While the Government share his concern about the safety of boxers, we do not believe that the sport should be banned. First, I would like to say that British boxing suffered a tragic loss two weeks ago with the death of the super-bantamweight Bradley Stone, following his British title contest. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in offering sincere condolences to his family.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not yet have the full information on this incident, and I am therefore unable to comment substantively on the case. However, the general secretary of the BBBC has advised me that all the medical requirements appear to have been in place for the contest. The board is conducting an inquiry into the incident and has agreed to forward a report io me as soon as it becomes available.
Boxing is an established and properly regulated sport in this country at both amateur and professional level, and it has a wide following among the general public. It stretches back over hundreds of years and is now a major part of our country's sporting heritage. Some hon. Members may recall a most stimulating debate on boxing in another place on 4 December 1991 when the noble Lord Taylor of Gryfe called for a ban on professional boxing.
The Government's view on boxing remains as it was then. We believe strongly that in a free society, which this country thankfully enjoys, individuals should have the freedom to participate in a sport of their choice, so long as it is within the law and they are fully aware of the risks involved. What is paramount is that the element of risk attached to boxing is controllable and that the proper medical safeguards are in place. BBBC medical safeguards are among the most rigorous in the world and are constantly under review.
Hon. Members with any knowledge of boxing will be aware that, following meetings in late 1991 between my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) —then the Minister for sport—the BBBC and a number of medical specialists, the BBBC not only strengthened its medical safeguards but converted them into firm regulations. I am well aware of the British Medical Association's report "The Boxing Debate" published in June 1993 reinforcing its call for a ban on boxing, and I met representatives from the BBBC in January to discuss its response to the BMA's report.
I know that the BBBC is already reviewing its research on methods of continual assessment of brain functions to detect possible chronic deterioration that may occur during a boxer's career. It is also considering the extension of a pilot scheme currently operating in Wales which is aimed at minimising acute brain injury by the compulsory attendance of an anaesthetist with the necessary equipment at the ringside. In addition, it has issued a special checklist of ocular pathology to improve an eye test for boxers.
Nevertheless, where safety is concerned, there is never any room for complacency. I am pleased to tell the House that the BBBC will shortly hold a meeting, at which—

Mr. Tom Pendry: Perhaps I can help the Minister and the House by saying that the meeting to which the Minister refers is to take place on the 24th of this month. I have helped to arrange the meeting. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who as the House knows is an eminent neurologist, and two other brain surgeons—Dr. Sutcliffe, who was the surgeon in the case of the boxer who was referred, and Peter Hamlyn—have accepted invitations to meet the medical officer of the British Boxing Board of Control and his team. They are determined to see whether there are ways in which they can make the sport safer.

Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I am glad to pay tribute to the valuable contribution that he has made not only to that meeting but to other aspects of boxing. As he said, the meeting will be attended by senior members of the BBBC's medical panel, including leading neurologists and neurosurgeons. He mentioned Mr. John Sutcliffe and Mr. Peter Hamlyn. Other independent experts and outsiders will also attend. I am glad that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) is in his place.
I understand that the meeting will not only look at ways in which the unfortunate incident involving Bradley Stone might have been avoided but will examine what further medical and safety measures can practicably be introduced to protect the health of boxers. Some of the issues that they will consider include ways of monitoring the weight of boxers for at least one week prior to a contest and observation periods after contests.
However, there is absolutely no case for singling out boxing for a ban. To ban boxing would drive the sport underground, and remove boxers from the very safeguards which now protect them. Furthermore, even if boxing were banned in this country, boxers could still compete overseas where the medical safeguards may not be so stringent.
Let me first deal with the question of fatalities. Figures provided by coroners to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that, from 1986 to 1992, there have been three deaths in England and Wales from boxing. Tragically, Mr. Stone has added to those statistics. In the same period, however, there have been 77 deaths in motor sports, 69 deaths in air sports, 54 deaths in mountaineering, 40 deaths in ball games and 28 deaths in horse riding.
I am also pleased to say that the statistics for injuries sustained from boxing show that some views expressed recently following the death of Mr. Stone are grossly exaggerated. For example, the Sports Council conducted an analysis into sports accidents based on the general household surveys of 1987, 1988 and 1989. A standardised "risk factor" for each sport was calculated by representing the number of sports accidents as a factor of the number of


occasions in which individuals participated in each sport. Sports were then placed in one of four categories, ranging from high to negligible risk. Hon. Members may be interested and may be surprised to know that boxing was placed in the negligible risk category along with golf and snooker.
The Government have no hesitation, however, in accepting that, sadly, there are instances in which long-term medical problems can be attributable to boxing. But boxing is not unique in this respect. The simple fact is that there is a risk attached to any physically challenging activity, and to remove the risk would, for the most part, remove the challenge itself. Only last week, we sadly witnessed the tragic death of the jockey, Steve Wood, at Lingfield. The previous weekend, we were cruelly and vividly reminded of the risks involved in another challenging sport following the tragic deaths of Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger on the Imola track in San Marino.
Nevertheless, as I have said, no one can afford to be complacent about the issue of boxing safety. The Government believe strongly that the utmost attention must be paid to safety not just in boxing but in all sports where risk is a factor.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: May I explain to the Minister that the argument that he is making on risk is not quite correct? Boxing is not associated with a risk of brain damage. It is associated with a certainty of brain damage. It might be true that there is no certainty of death and that the risk of death is small, but there is an absolute certainty of brain damage. Every time a boxer is hit, the brain is damaged. That is cumulative. What is worrying is that the cumulative effects are now thought to be progressive.

Mr. Sproat: That is one view. Of course, it is not a view that is universally held.

Mr.Galbraith: rose—

Mr. Sproat: I have only a few minutes left.
I believe that both the BBBC, which is the governing body for professional boxing, and the Amateur Boxing Association, which controls amateur boxing in Britain, are acutely aware of their respective responsibilities in protecting the health of boxers. They recognise that, like any physical contact sport, boxing has an element of risk attached to it. What is paramount is that the element of risk should be controllable and containable.
Medical safeguards are already in place to protect the health and safety of boxers before, during and after contests and to monitor boxers for long-term medical problems. These include full medical examinations, with a detailed list of conditions that would preclude a boxer from holding a licence; CT scans; specialists' examinations; and automatic 28–day suspension for boxers losing inside the scheduled distance, with further medical examinations before they may re-enter the ring.
These standards underline the importance that the boxing authorities attach to medical issues. None the less, it is vital that the standards, however stringent, be kept under constant review, as there is always room for further improvement. As I said earlier, I shall remain in close contact with the BBBC, and I look forward to receiving a report following that body's deliberations on 24 May.
Some hon. Members, in the past, have claimed that boxing is repugnant and morally wrong, in that the sport deliberately encourages individuals to inflict injury on each other. This is a matter of judgment. However, I should like to make a couple of points very clear. Boxers in this country compete within the strictest of medical safeguards and regulations imposed by reputable governing bodies, and they do so under their own free will and within a sporting code that emphasises skill rather than aggression.
In conclusion, I hope that I have made it clear that, while the Government are not complacent about safety issues in boxing, we believe that it would be a gross infringement of civil liberties to prevent individuals from participating in a properly constituted sport of their choice. I hope that I have also shown that there is clear evidence that the boxing authorities in this country are determined to continue to make the sport as safe as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.